A lot depends on what kind of 'puter you have too! Certain distros balk on my machine, while others run flawlessly on the same hardware. So I usually recommend three things:

Look for a distro's hardware compatibility list to get an idea if your machine will have any trouble with it. My Dell, for example, ran great on Ubuntu/Mint until version 10.04 (Lucid, and Mint 9) came out, but the old Intel graphics chip in it balks now. They went and introduced buggy new experimental software called Plymouth which wreaks havoc on those older Intel video chips. That has been my major beef with Ubuntu and it's offspring lately: Putting Beta software in a distro that's supposed to be "newbie friendly." PulseAudio, for example, gave even experienced Linux users fits when Ubuntu first insisted on including it... so what do they think a newbie's gonna do with it? This time it's Plymouth.

Second, "test drive it" using a LiveCD before you install it. If it works from the LiveCD, chances are good that it will work installed to your hard drive.

Third - and this applies only to Ubuntu and it's offspring (Mint, PinguyOS, UberStudent, etc - anything Ubuntu-based): Don't install the latest version. Ubuntu is rushed to market to meet a deadline, ready or not. And most of the time it's not ready at release time. It takes a few months to work out the bugs. Stay one release behind the newest one instead of grabbing the latest thing as soon as it's out the door.

-Robin

First, as a Linux newb, do NOT try Slackware. I'm confused as to why anyone is recommending this to a newb.

Second, Ubuntu and/or Linux Mint are usually the best for beginners. Mint is based on Ubuntu.

Also,
This is not true. Just because a distro has a fixed release cycle doesn't mean it is rushed out the door in a bug-ridden state. Most of the time when you hear things like this it's just a flame on Ubuntu; you'll rarely see such criticisms of Fedora, which has a similar release cycle.

The next version of Ubuntu, 10.10 Maverick Meerkat, will be available for download in about ten days. However, you may choose to download 10.04 Lucid Lynx, as it is a long term release and is supported for a whopping three years.

I'm not saying it's always true, but it has been generally true of every Ubuntu release since 9.04. I speak from experience as an Ubuntu user since Intrepid (8.10). Waiting a couple of months for an earlier version with updates is simply a sensible precaution - whether it's Ubuntu or Fedora or any other distro with a fixed release schedule.

Version 10.04 is still buggy on my machine because of Plymouth, and it's just stupid that they chose an LTS version to introduce Plymouth on. I'm still on Karmic because of it, and when Karmic is no longer supported I may be forced to switch distros if they haven't worked out the bugs by then. I love Xubuntu's simplicity and features, but it's inclusion of PulseAudio even when none of the default apps depends on it, and using buggy Plymouth just to gain a fraction of a second faster boot time just doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, starting with 10.10, K/X/Ubuntu will no longer support i386-586 hardware. 686 and above will be supported, but machines older than 10 or so years won't be able to run on Merrkat and beyond. So the old adage - "Linux gives life to old computers" - that was once true of all Linux distros, will no longer be true of Ubuntu and it's siblings and derivatives.

-Robin

1 members found this post helpful.

You've never heard me use Fedora then. I'd consider Ubuntu to be leaps and bounds better stability at release than Fedora. I always want to love Fedora since it's obviously done by Red Hat, but every release I've tried in the last few years has either failed totally to work on FAR more hardware than it should, or it's so buggy as to make Windows look attractive.

I personally think it's about time that distro's kill off <6|86 support. There are specific distro's designed around old hardware. If x distro isn't one of them, get rid of supporting them.

2 members found this post helpful.

Howcome nobody offered this?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...IFUbJA&cad=rja

Ubuntu has shipped with some nasty bugs in the past, certainly. I personally have never had too much of a problem with critical bugs and they are all fixed within a month or so. But waiting till the next release won't do anyone any good because while older bugs may be fixed, newer bugs may arise.

Can't say I'm sad about this. Using Ubuntu for old machines isn't a good idea in light of other distro's designed for older computers. Take Puppy, for example (the newest release being binary compatible with Lucid Lynx).

I can say with certainty that you are the first person I've heard complain about Fedora's release cycle and any accompanying bugs.

And 10.10 works out ALL the bugs in Plymouth: I have had very few crashes, especially in the later months of testing 10.10 (the Beta and beyond). And besides: Even my 2-year-old Intel Atom netbook (an Acer Aspire One AOA110-1545) runs the Meerkat - the desktop edition - just fine.

Use a live disc first.
After you get the feel for Linux set up your computer for a dual boot. Its not bad to have windows functionality because some webpages won't work with Linux. There are a lot of great factions of Linux but documentation is not one of them so having windows there when you have to accomplish something with out going to a seminar is useful.


Which distro to use?
Some people like to have a barebones experience. They like their operating system to be trivial. This maybe okay if you are familiar with another O.S before Linux but not practical for learning. Most distro developers have to generate funds somehow. They have a proprietary opensource version and offer other services for industry or whatever. I recommend getting free version of one of these distros that you can purchase the proprietary package after you find that you like it. RedHat is arguably the Biggest name associated with Linux. They offer a lot of proprietary services and documentation but it looks like they are phasing out of the free documentation. They also rival M$ in many ways. They have a distro called Fedora that is worth looking into. I prefer distros that have the strengths of belonging to a proprietary version. They do lose the "Opensource" ideology to some extent. Distros that fall into this category are Madriva, Suse and I'm sure that there are others. I might consider Gentoo, BSD or Slackware someday as well. There is a Topten list of Linux distros on the web if you are interested. http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=majorI don't understand Ubuntus philosophy too much other than they are Opensource "strong". They have a lot of forums that do not go into enough detail to get an overview so instead of becoming someone that can figure out a solution you are always reliant on someone else. They do have somethings like setting hot keys built into their system though. Thats my opinion on my own Ubuntu experience. I love their Opensource attitude but I don't understand the rest of the appeal. Go for the FULLEST FEATURED O.S THAT HAS THE BEST DOCUMENTATION!

I don't think so, you just have to know how to use Google.
How can one thing be proprietary and open source at the same time? If you mean there are commercial Linux-versions, yes, they are intended for enterprise use and I don't see the need for a learning person to buy one, because there are always free alternatives, e.g. CentOS instead of RHEL.If you get all your knowledge from forums, this may be true, although I do not believe this. If you want to learn Linux you have to read tutorials, HowTos and books, not only forums.The main characteristic of Ubuntu is having hotkeys set. Very interessant.Then why are you talking about things you don't understand?