It's pretty hard to find a distro that's absolutely perfect for your needs, unless those needs are very limited. I've found that it's usually better to pick a distro with really good documentation, a good userbase/forum, and a good package manager to start out with. With GUI tools in particular, sometimes they don't work perfectly. When starting out using Kubunty Feisty, I had a hard time with Samba shares, mostly because the KDE gui for Samba mucked up my settings. The excellent documentation and forum were what saved me after a quick google search.

Anyways, your needs seem simple enough not to require a server specific distro.

SilentSam.. so do you think my 2 original choices are overkill for what I need?
I was mainly looking at the gui tools provided by each distro for managing my specific needs on the server. Each has a unique set of tools but each does not include tools for managing everything.
For instance, I can't manage Logical Volume Management easily with Karoshi. ClarkConnect it's more dificult to manage SAMBA PDC.

Any recomendations?

I would think something like Debian or CentOS

I've never had exposure to ClarkConnect nor Karoshi, so I can't really tell if they're overkill. Normally most server distros install a lot of server bloat that you won't need for a LAN server. Plus ClarkConnect and Karoshi have a lot less users than something like Debian or Ubuntu Server, which is important for forum help and user based documentation.

I do know that OpenSUSE has most if not all of what you are looking for. If you choose to install it, make sure you modify the default installation software, and you'll see options for print server, samba server, etc. YasT2 does LVM management by default.

It's been awhile since I've installed anything but PCLOS, so I'm not sure what else has what you're looking for.

Hi all,

I have a simple but complex question

Can anyone tell with so many versions of linux.. which one is the best... or which one is good in what aspect??

Please... it will be a great help for me in deciding...

Thanks..
Suman

there is not, and should not, be a correct answer to that. you need to find the one you prefer, or just pick a popular one and use it.

Yes... true... but there should be some fields in which fedora must be having advantage to Suse and Vice versa in some other aspects ..

Hi! Well I was reading this super thread from page 1 to like 7 or 8 and thought that I should register and ask a few questions too..

I have two questions (i have two boxes), one older than the other.

The old one should hold:

500mhz
?? RAM [How do I check?]
?? Graphics card [But could support 1024x768 and 16 bit colour (didn't try 32-bit)]
20gb hdd

Anyway, for this one, I tried to run xubuntu (i read that xfce was more lightweight).. But i failed the installation at the loading GNOME section (how come it loads gnome even though its xubuntu?)

I tried DSL and Puppy.. Got them to work, but I couldn't install them onto the computer. Any advice in this area is appreciated I guess.

Tried FreeBSD (what a big gamble) but gave up because I realised that my box would probably be too slow anyway..

Then I tried Zenwalk. Pretty good system I must say, but still found it quite slow (i.e. could only run one application at a time. Anymore than that, it started lagging).

So i want to ask.. what distro is good for me? because I don't think i need something as lightweight as DSL or Puppy.. But I want something that I can use that is fairly fast. Any advice would be appreciated.

Second part..

I just got two free boxes from a dump. They ditched two 1000mhz asus motherboard boxes there. I'm not quite sure what are the specifications other than that however. I just got them working. They ditched them because of (1) spoilt power supply (2) 2 spoilt capacitors on the motherboard that i managed to replace and get it working.

Hard disk space is 40GB + 40GB (separate hard disks; i added one myself)..
512MB RAM
Graphics Card: Unsure..

Well i do know after extensive reading that ubuntu or kubuntu should be perfect for this PC or something.. But then I want to ask, what kind of advantages does fedora have over ubuntu.. and what kind of advantages does ubuntu have over fedora?

yes, and it'll all come down to a popularity contest, which won't help you personally. if you search this site you will see dozens of identical threads with discussions you can just read. check the sticky thread at the top of the Linux - Distributions forum.

two fast tips, to know your ram, in a running liveCD/normal environment type "top" on the command line, to find out your video card, type "lspci" which will give you an overview of all hardware present.

I think that ubuntu is the best linux version for start. It is very easy to configure

There really aren't all that many versions in spite of first appearances. There are a handful of base distros and the rest are essentially derivatives. The software that is available for each of those is nearly identical but some tend to go for the latest (and potentially buggiest) while other ones are more conservative and offer older versions that have received more testing. Likewise, some may care more about keeping up with the latest trends in hardware development while other ones are - deliberately or not - a bit behind. The fundamental difference between distros lies in their software management and system configuration. Some are easy, other ones are not necessarily difficult but require more research. For example, if you are technically minded or willing to roll up your sleeves, it would be a good idea to start from Arch, Slackware or Gentoo. If not or if you want to take these things one step at a time, your interests would be better served by something like Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian or Suse.

and so the popularity contest begins. if you want to know the outcome, just look at the download figures at distrowatch.com

I've played with DSL, Puppy, SUSE and Solaris. SUSE seems to have the most stuff available, but then I haven't tried Debian or Ubuntu to make a qualified judgement on this. Although this wouldn't/won't answer the question, it seems that some sort of basic checklist would be in order to help us Noobies figure out this kind of thing:

1. How simple is the Distro to install?
2. What are the hardware limitations/driver availabilities of the Distro?
3. What is available for or built-in to the Distro? (I'm a green-screener, so my biggies are C compiler, Perl, Samba and Apache. For most folks, I'm guessing that browsers, desktops and applications are more important).
4. How does the Distro handle/provide/address the features that are most important to you?

I would recommend one of two distros: openSUSE 10.3, which I am presently using, or Ubuntu (either the "Fiesty" release or the "Edgy" release which is the newest). Both distros are quite user friendly, quite easy to install, and provide a huge selection of available packages. Both will do what you want.

I have used both and would personally recommend openSUSE 10.3. The install process is clean and straightforward, the KDE desktop is just downright gorgeous (vs. the drab brown "earth tone" color schema that dominates Ubuntu) and frankly I find openSUSE's KDE desktop is simply more intuitive and easier to use. This last part is very definitely a personal call. Please, gentle readers, no passionate flaming in defense of Gnome's desktop (the default on Ubuntu).

openSUSE also comes with the excellent, if sometimes arcane, YaST configuration manager, which generally makes the configuration of most things, including some complex things like NFS and SAMBA, quite straightforward.

I have used a LOT of Linux releases over the years. I keep coming back to SuSE. It is wonderful. openSUSE 10.3 is also the FASTEST Linux distro I have ever used. It boots to login on my machine (3.06 GHz PIV HT) in only 27s, and from login to desktop in only another 10s. That makes it the speed champion of all Linux distros I have ever used.

So, as if it was not obvious by now, my recommendation would be openSUSE 10.3.