Best Distro For Geekish Newbie

Which Distro would you recommend for someone that is not looking for Linux to be "Windowz ala'buntu", if you get what I mean. I'm taking the "bottom up" approach so to speak, like a geek, so automated eye candy is not as important to me as is the "power underneath the hood". I don't want a bunch of redundant packages installed, just a lean, mean, efficient system that just does what I want it to do, and nothing I don't.

I will start my training with commands and file system management, while at the same time kind of cheating while I use the more automated desktop environment for day to day tasks as I go, so whichever Disrto I use should be capable of both, and no, I don't want to simply use a "live" version. I have some basic Linux experience, and am looking to really "get it" now.

I guess I would need to set up some kind of dual boot system, where one is used as my daily use setup, and the other for making it and breaking it, and then remaking it again. So which Distro would be best in both roles?

This will be operated on my notebook, so if one Distro is more supportive of that than another, that matters as well; WiFi, etc.


These are the Distros that I am most interested in, having no real preference one over the other at this point. Which would you recommend, and why?

Arch

Debian

Fedora

Gentoo

Slackware


I was going to include openSUSE, but unfortunately the evil empire (M$) owns it's soul.

 

Ubuntu!!!!!!!

 

OK! :laugh:

 

Was going to suggest Gentoo after reading that you really want to "get it," but that was before reading your three choices. Guess there isn't a distro much more basic than Slackware. Personally, Ubuntu suits me (my own mind is much too feeble for either Gentoo or Slackware! ) Good luck and I hope you enjoy whichever becomes your choice.

 

I was looking at Gentoo, too!
But I felt like I had to many choices to list, so I decided to cut Gentoo. If someone recomends it with good reason over the others, I will definately consider it.

Slackware was the Distro I was "playing with last, and I really liked it a lot, although I didn't get too far with it because of some other things going on at the time. I tried Fedora for a while about three releases ago, but at that time I really didn't like it very much, but maybe I would now.

I said I was "geekish".


Thanks for the kind words!

 

If you want to start giving the innards of Linux a look, try Arch Linux a try. It gives you a basic system that you build up yourself, but don't have to bother compiling packages from scratch. It's also damn fast, as you only install what you want.

I use it full time on my Inspiron 6400.

 

If it is for geek, does it really matter which distro one choose ? All of them have a huge selection of packages that can be compiled or tweaked if that still don't meet the needs.

Some may say debian's packages may be a bit outdated but that usually refers to the "stable" branch and its unstable is IMO just as cutting edge as other distro. In fact, it most likely still offers the largest selection of packages that one can work on.

 

I would use FreeBSD if it supports your hardware well. It gives you a nice clean install without the bloat that a lot of linux distributions give you. Either that or slackware which is similar to FreeBSD.

Pros: I have been running FreeBSD on my webhosting servers for years and they run like a dream

Steve

 

I must admit, that as I'm researching and getting recommendations, Arch is at the top so far.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

I know Debian is one of the best, that's why I listed it, but as I continue to research, I find that I'm leaning towards those that have binary packages.

Thanks for the info!

 

By binary you mean vendor non-free ? As debian's packages are all binary, nothing to compile.

I just gave a try on Arch and I would say that I don't find it to be particularly leaner than debian and the installation program has more rough edges(dead on reboot as it failed to find the root, must be some grub configure issue). While these things are not tough to fix, it should not happen given that I just give it a plain vanilla VM with one IDE and one CD-ROM, nothing fancy. Also suggested to me the wrong partition info(see a 1G disk but suggest a 7G space).

 

Wow, you did all that already?

Yes, that is what I meant by binary, and I'm reading a lot of very good things about Debian.

So it looks like Arch, Debian, and Slackware are my three top picks so far.

Thanks for the continued help, it's much appreciated!

Now give Slackware a try!

 

I am also in your situation, just about to start using Linux, at least alongside Windows, and I have gone with Debian. Still downloading the massive DVD images though (1 DVD out of 3 done) - maybe I should just buy them from somewhere and save me the hassle

Anyway, can't really explain why I chose Debian. I guess it seemed to be a good balance between reliability, available packages, support and ease of use.

 

Personally, I cannot find incentive to try slackware(or gentoo or Arch) as I can't find a stand out feature of them that worth the switch.

For me, it would be either a RPM based system(centOS/federa) if I envision running proprietory system say oracle or sybase etc. or debian(tried ubuntu for its more cutting edge desktop environment but don't like it).

 

Well, I just use Arch because it's a hell of a lot faster. *

*Than Ubuntu/Debian/SuSE/Fedora on my hardware.

 

That is a fair reason though I don't need to run linux as the host OS, only under VM or on some VPS so performance is never a concern for me.

 

I have some low end hardware that it will be running on, as well some new more powerful hardware, so performance is a priority for me.

So far Arch, Debian, and Slackware are still my top picks.

 

I personally like Ubuntu because it's Debian with a friendly wrapper. You CAN get into the guts, but it's not required, which makes it great for a learning OS. You won't be thrown into the deep end right away. But if that's what you want, go with Slackware, IMHO. Slack is the original distro of Linux, if you really want to start from the beginning

 

Ubuntu Gnome should do you just fine

 

Arch or Debian. I like Arch's overall design, and pacman is really fast. And there's merits of being a rolling-release distro. Debian has way bigger community and packages, though. And you can stay bleeding edge on Debian if you use Lenny (testing) or Sid (unstable).

Okay, Gentoo if you have lots and lots of time to compile everything.

Krt, you don't have to download all DVDs....You can use netinst CD or 1CD installation of KDE or XFCe.

 

Slackware is my favorite. It strikes me as the sort of distro that would be good for a newbie, since it doesn't cover things up much. I don't know about you, but I tend to go the path of least resistence, even when I want to be learning. That means when I use Ubuntu, I never learn anything.

 

My feelings exactly!

 

Maybe Ubuntu is not exactly what you need. However, if you decide to try it, try a "better Ubuntu" - linux Mint!

 

well the main difference between slackware and arch (or gentoo) is that arch has a package managmeant system which means if you simply wants it to download and install the package all you have to do is Pacman -S <package name> or you could compile it your self its your choice in slackware you have to compile things yourself (atleast as far as i know and i learned "hard" linux on slackware) in gentoo you can choose if you want to compile the packages or download binarys for them i think that compiling them is what most user do since otherwise they could simply use arch
also i use arch

 

That's basically what I plan on doing. Starting with Slack, and then trying out Arch. Gentoo would be my next choice most likely.

 

I'm planning on starting with either Slack or Arch.
The one thing I hate about Linux is choosing a distro =P . I can't choose between Slack and Arch now.

 

well the biggest difference between gentoo and arch is in arch the packages is only binary in gentoo there is a choice atleast on some of packages like the larger ones say open office the binary takes up to a minute to install but if one where to compile the same package it takes a couple of hours (exactly how long it takes depends on the cpu ofc)

 

Isn't Gentoo known informally as "the masochist's Linux"?

On Slackware packages -- Slackware does actually have packages. You can use a program when you compile things from source to have them formatted in the Slackware package format so that they're easy to manage (and remove), you can convert rpm packages to Slackware tgz packages, or you can get packages from third party sites, like linuxpackages.net. It's not nearly as bad as it sounds, and in fact, I like it.

 

From what I understand, it would be best to start with Slack to really learn the heart of Linux, and then try out Arch.

 

What is 'heart' of linux ?

linux is just a kernel with its modules(FS, device driver and aux service like netfilter) sitting at /lib/modules/'uname -r' which can be tweaked by /proc and /sysfs. They should be the same be it fedora or suse or debian or gentoo or slackware or anything.

On top of that, we have lots of userspace utilities and with the recent push of FHS, even this part is becoming standardized, mostly.

I found it strange that I get the impression that using some 'user-friendly' distro like ubuntu(or suse or any of those GUI oriented) would prevent people from learning the 'heart' of linux. Just start a shell and browse /proc and /sysfs and you learn just as much as any other distro(of course, many of those are cryptic and needs the help of google).

 

I guess I mean being forced to do more manual installation and configuration from the bottom up. That's what I want to do, and I don't want a bunch of programs installed with the Distro.

 

Go with Debian man, . Debian is the most flexible distribution. Debian will give you a clean install if you want. From there you can get the binaries or get the source packages and compile things yourself. You can do whatever you want with it.

 

Debian: old packages , but stable and "secure"
Gentoo: got the time to compile? awzum ged it nauw!! (i'm gentoo addicted)
Arch: not a clue - i'll give "don't panic" a try later (today!)
Fedora: just redhats - more or less dirty - playground
Slackware: seems to be "awzum" too, only tried SLAX (slack live cd) & Zenwalk (slack + xfce) for a few hours - slacks package management wasn't mine

 

Debian is definitely one that I find to be at the very least among the top of all Distros from my research. I will likely give it a shot at some point.

 

Slax is soooo cool. I want to make my own customized version some day!

The package management concept is something I don't really understand.

 

Debian: old packages?? Certainly you haven't tried the unstable a.k.a SID release.

 

Are packages, source, and binaries three different versions of essentially the same thing?

 

I decided to go with Arch Linux since it's probably faster than Slackware. Hopefully this will be a great learning experience and help me get even more familiar with Linux.​

 

Arch is supposed to be fast, but I don't think it's faster than Slack, almost nothing is that I've heard of.

I've been told that Slack is more consistent and standardized in the way it's managed, and that things are more centralized, where Arch is a bit more spread out and disorganized.

There are other Distos I've been looking into that combine the purity and continuity of Slack with the pacman package manager of Arch, and similar things to that effect. Check these out,

Absolute

Frugalware

VectorLinux

Zenwalk

 

A package is ... I don't know what precisely a package is. How embarassing. Anyways, it's something of a container format for a program, or part of a program, or a set of files or something, that's usually specific to a distribution (I think...)

So, and I feel that I'm on firmer ground here, when you talk about package management, you're talking about the system a distro has in place to manage your installed programs and their assorted bits.

You hear talk of installing things "from source" vs installing binaries. The difference there is in whether the things are compiled ahead of time, or compiled by you or your package management tools at the time of installation.

Gentoo is traditionally from source. When you use portage to install something, portage downloads the source code-- text files, and then compiles it. Debian traditionally uses binary packages, which contain executable files that are already compiled. (You will see the distinction between text and binary files in more than one place.)

 

Yeah, a package is just a program... packaged. Downloading and installing EAC in Windows, that's a package. It comes in a .exe with an installer in that case. In Linux the package manager is the installer, among other things (except in the case of Slackware, that's ALL it does). The package can be as simple as a compressed file. In Arch and Slackware it's a .tar.gz, in Debian a .deb, in Fedora and Suse a .rpm. They typically contain a file list, and sometimes some other data for more complex package managers like in Debian and rpm based distros.

By the way, a lot of people are overlooking ABS in their debates regarding source vs binary. It's the Arch Build System, and is essentially a database of build scripts called package builds. It makes it much easier to install a package from source if you need to tweak a build option or something.

Regarding speed, Arch is really not noticeably faster than Slack. Once they're booted, neither are really faster than Debian either. I'm speaking of systems with the same software installed and with generally the same daemons running. You could bring up Arch's use of i586 optimized packages, while Slack is using, I believe, i486, and Debian i386. That honestly makes almost no difference. The big thing in my eyes is boot speed, Debian takes just about forever, Arch and Slackware are very fast to boot.

Finally, regarding learning GNU/Linux without the obfuscation of distro specific configuration and cruft... it's not going to happen. Obviously Fedora, Suse and Ubuntu will be worse, just because they don't give you as much opportunity to set things up from the start. Then when something goes wrong you're just left kind of helpless unless you're a guru. Debian uses dpkg, the backend to apt, to control a great deal of configuration data. If you're using Debian you want to be using dpkg to handle your configuration wherever possible so not to cause breakage. Again, that's obfuscation. Slackware has quite a bit of reliance on a set of dialog based configuration tools. Arch uses rc.conf. They all use different methods for configuring your network, as far as storing data, for example. Yet they all still use ifconfig, iwconfig, route, arp/rarp, and some other command line programs to actually pass the settings to the kernel.

If you really want to learn GNU, Linux, and all the rest of it, look up LFS.

 

Thanks for the great informative reply!

I do plan on making a LFS, but first I want to get up and running Linux ASAP, so first I want something more in the middle ground just to get going.

Right now I'm looking at Frugalware, and this may be what I end up starting with.