Thanks for the info!

My 500mhz comp has 60mb ram.. and runs an ATI Rage 128 RL/VR AGP..

Neither one is better. Just different. And since this is pretty much the same debate we usually have, I have moved this thread to the megathread at the top of Linux-Distributions, that way you can get all the opinions already stated.

Fedora vs Ubuntu is a pretty tricky question. Keep in mind I have most of my Fedora experience on Fedora 7, and I've been using (x)(k)Ubuntu for quite some time. I've heard Fedora 8 made big strides over 7, but I have no experience with it yet.

Fedora:
-More cutting edge
-Uses RPM packages (which occasionally can cause dependency issues when not using a package manager)
-Uses Yum as a package manager
-Can customize installation quite nicely off of the DVD installer
-Choice of KDE, Gnome, or XFCE upon install (I chose KDE)
-I had to manually configure Fedora to start X on boot
-Noticeably slower on older systems
-Artwork is nice
-Touted as Linux for the intermediate user

Ubuntu
-Uses DEB packages (much less dependency issues)
-Synaptic (Gnome, XFCE) and Adept (KDE) package managers are faster than Yum
-I'm not a fan of the artwork/colour scheme
-Ubuntu always seems more polished than Xubuntu/Kubuntu (good if you like Gnome)
-Newbie friendly, but I believe there are easier distros for newbies out there
-A little more stable than Fedora since it's less cutting edge


Both have a large supply of packages. Both are major distributions, which supply their own security fixes. Both have large communities, hence bugs get out in the open quickly, and fixes are found. They also have little nuances (such as Ubuntu disabling login as root by default) that you'll come across.

In the end, if your hardware is really old, Ubuntu is probably better simply because it's faster, especially in the package manager dept. The moment you have 512mb+ ram, and a 1Ghz+ processor P4 or newer (or Athlon K7 or newer) then the speed difference starts becoming neglegible. Try both, you'll probably find that the layout/usage in one completely clashes with your preferences.

You'll need a bare bones distro like DSL, or Puppy for that little RAM.

I have burned both DSL and Puppy..

I do have one problem that is common to both. (is it supposed to be in this thread??) I am unable to install them onto the hard disk.. But for normal bootup it works perfect (at least, so far, it hasn't give me any problems..)

Besides that,I've read somewhere that there is another distro called Peanut Linux. How about that distro? is it suitable?

Does an error come up when you're trying to install them, or are you just not sure as to how?

i'm not quite sure how to install them =P

could you advise me?

to install DSL
first run cfdisk to setup your partitions
then right click on the desktop and somewhere in one of the menus it should say install to harddrive click that
then follow the prompts and reboot when finished

In Puppy there's also an option in the right-click menu to install to hard disk

how do i run the cfdisk for DSL? im stuck at that stage because i tried runnign cfdisk from the terminal and i couldn't. (as seen, i'm pretty much a noob at linux). .

type the command cfdisk as root

I'm trying to move from windows to linux and I'm wondering which distro would be the best to start out on. I have literally no linux experience. Does anyone have an idea of which linux distro is the most like windows in the sense of installing things?

Did you read the "megathread" in this very forum? I'm reporting this one to join it.

Why would anyone want that? The windows installer sucks testicles.

I never said anything about the windows installer...It's just that it took 3 hours for me to get my nvidia driver installed. Windows and Linux are completely different when it comes to installing stuff. I'm just wondering if there was a distro or an app that helps in the process of installing things.