Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:11 UTC
Linux With Linux traditionally coming in many, many flavours, a common call among some Linux fans - but mostly among people who actually do not use Linux - is to standardise all the various distributions, and work from a single "one-distribution-to-rule-them-all". In a recent interview, Linus Tovalds discarded the idea, stating that he thinks "it's something absolutely required!"
Thread beginning with comment 347218
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

On the other hand, if someone is out actively and seriously looking for something such as an alternative operating system for a computer, then they are either ALREADY looking for choice and wanting to explore, or are looking for some thing supported (and sometimes free) because they are having problems with their current OS. If they are looking because they are having problems with their current, all you have to do is just spend a little time reading.

I would agree with you that anybody who is introduced to Linux by someone else probably has their distro already chosen.

But why do you assume that somebody interested in Linux means that they are having problems with their current OS? Another big reason may be because all of the 'Linux is the best thing since sliced bread' articles that keep popping up all over the place. That being the case, there ought to be one distro that you could refer people to, that was universally agreed upon as the best place to start. But as it stands now, if you ask which would be the best to start with, that's going to start a flame war between a bunch of distro zealots.

When talking about distros, I've been reading this website for years, and have even tried Linux in the past. But even I wouldn't have a clue which one to start with now days. I was always partial to Slackware myself, just because it ran faster than the others. But I am also interested to see how the more 'newbie friendly' distros have evolved. Of course, I'm more of a power user, so I would have to try them all ;)

Edited 2009-02-04 22:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:

Of course, I'm more of a power user, so I would have to try them all

Simple starting point:

Get the gratis but closed source VM. Better feature set. Try all the interesting Distro's and pick the one you like.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:

Agreed, for some, a new OS choice may have nothing to do with the old OS being broken somehow.

I'm an OS geek so one of my motivations was the fact that it was something different. At the time there was win98, winNT4 and this Slackware disk a friend gave me so I gave it a go; found myself back on NT4 within a week.

.. but the second time around I tried Red Hat's ftp install and haven't build a single boot system for myself since.

Mandrake replaced Red Hat when they dropped .mp3 support and all the other interesting things that made it appealing to a highschool kid.

When liveCD started showing up I was downloading them as fast as I could find new liveCD distros just to check them out. This worked great until every distro started providing a liveCD. Now I have a few powerful liveCD specialized distros, Debian for servers and still Mandriva for the desktop.

I also have a few BSD VMs, a plan9 VM, ReactOS on my short list for a new VM.. Dos/win3.11 on a VM since having found my license and diskettes again. If you want to talk about boot times.. wow does Dos load quick on a quad core. I don't think I could get it booted faster even if I did run it off a ramdisk..

but then.. seeing what different OS can do is party of my particular computer illness so I'm not suggesting everyone start a lab with a terminal for each one.

Reply Parent Score: 2