As a rank beginner, I have begun to play with Knoppix a little and have stumbled my way into it. I recently saw a discussion which labeled Knoppix as a "Demonstration" distribution. My other choice is Mandrake, which is touted as the easiest to get into for beginners. What will Mandrake bring to the table that Knoppix does not?

Thanks

well, knoppix is debian based and mandrake is, well, mandrake based. Mandrake has four (emm.. lost mine so thats an aproximation) install cds, knoppix is a live cd with the option of installing it. It only has one CD. The number of Cd's is a very opion based thing whether it's good or bad, but basically knoppix is either easier to install or lacks software or mandrake is more complicated to install or has a full suite. If you are really happy with knoppix as a live CD and you are satisfied with the number of programs, go ahead and install it. As a live CD it will run a bit slower than from off the hard drive, and perhaps that is what the other discusion meant.

Personally, I use Mandrake and am very happy with it, I can't stand KDE (Gnomer here) so Knoppix would probably not be my first choice. I still think that knoppix is great for what it does though. It looks very complete.

let us know what you decide!

titanium_geek

Such questions are difficult to answer and often people who respond will show a bit of bias towards the distro that they prefer. You are better off trying both and then deciding which one you want to keep. Knoppix is not a demonstration only distro, it can be installed on your system. Mandrake has a live cd called MandrakeMove, but it doesn't do the distro any justice because its heavily stripped down.

Thanks Gentlemen.
While getting set-up, I will continue to experiment with Knoppix as I can boot from the CD and not disturb my Windows installation. I'm rounding up parts for a dedicated Linux machine. At that time I will load Mandrake and see how I like it. I have to say, Knoppix isn't bad. It found & loaded my sound card, and network card, and I was able to browse the other machines on my LAN.

I don't understand the difference in KDE & Gnome. So far I have been able to deal with KDE, but I'm always open for something easier to navigate.

interfaces. KDE and Gnome are different interfaces. I guess sort of like, but not really how the windows have a dos base and look different... I prefer Gnome, others prefer KDE. In mandrake you can choose to install both and try them out.

titanuim_geek

Just so you know my biases: I run Mandrake/KDE.

I prefer Mandrake, partly because it does come as a "full suite", although I imagine that if you install Knoppix to your hard drive, you can "apt-get" your way to a full suite, as well. Mandrake also recognizes all my hardware, the same as Knoppix.

As for KDE vs Gnome, essentially, they are both just Desktop Environments. KDE is built around the QT libraries, and is very well integrated. That is, the various KDE apps were designed and buit to share libraries and data, and to work together in smooth, efficient interface. Gnome apps are usually buit using the GTK (the Gimp Tool Kit), and are not so carefully integrated. This doesn't mean they don't work as well (some work even better than their KDE counterparts), just that, taken as a whole, it doesn't feel quite as cohesive. Of course, it is much better integrated than a lightweight Window Manager, like Fluxbox, where the only integration is what you apply yourself.