Linux for Beginner?
 

I'm refurbing an old laptop (the HD died) so I've got a blank slate to start with. I've been wanting to give linux a try so I thought this might be a good time. Some info on what I've got and what I need to do-

-40 gig HD on a Compac N600c (hope the space is enough; no comments on the antique please- it's just a knock-about and back-up machine!)
-Internet conjnection will be through old PCMCIA D-Link card (I have the driver file downloaded here but will it work with Linux?)

-What I do is surf the internet, email, and darn little else. I would like to use a chat client (currently use Pidgin but can use others). I want to have the usual 'accessories' working like javascript, flash player, adobe reader etc so that web pages work properly. Later on maybe a small Open Office software suite but I hardly use spreadsheets or the other stuff; just would be nice to have. Machine had wired mouse and external monitor ports, would like them to work. Also has the stock CD/DVD reader (guessing I'll need drivers for that).

-About me: I did with DOS way back in the day (forgotten all of that), was conversant with W98/ME/and XP as far as configuring things to work the way I wanted. No knowledge of any programming language, writing macros or anything like that. Maybe slightly more than stupid with this stuff but certainly not a whiz-kid. I think the average ten year old knows more than I do about computers these days!

What I'd like to start with is some kind of tutorial on Linux- Ubuntu seems the way to go- or is it? I prefer pics and text to watching videos; I understand and retain data better that way.

So can anyone recommend a site where I can begin to learn the most basic basics of installing and using Linux for my uses? Google is flooding me with so much I'm getting lost.

Linux MINT is a friendly face on Ubuntu for people coming from the Windows world. I use the Mint MATE (Mat-Tay) desktop.

I find that the versions of Mint I want to run REQUIRE that one must be able to boot from a DVD or USB flash drive. This could well rule out your old machine.

512 MB of RAM is the minimum recommended - 1 GB is suggested.

"Everyone" will recommend that you run Linux from a "live" DVD/flash drive to make certain that your hardware is adequate. Operation from a USB flash drive is MUCH faster than from an optical disk. You'll find that most "friendly" distributions of Linux are too large to fit on a CD. They include most of the software you'll want like an Office suite, scanner and printer drivers, etc.

I have found that the oldest hand-me-down PCs really aren't suitable for Ubuntu/Mint.

People will say that other versions of Linux will run on lesser hardware ... but I think you are interested in a widely-used version. Ubuntu claims to have the largest number of users, and the Mint version ("Ubuntu inside") comes in next.

Since you know the Ubuntu name, it's as good a place to start as anywhere. You can always decide later whether it's too big/slow/ugly/not quite right for you and install something else, since there's no cost involved. Try this:
https://ubuntu-manual.org/. It's written by Ubuntu community members, and is a downloadable PDF.

Agree with Bushfiva here.

Ignore what people like seacue tell you about their preference for some minor linux distro that nobody's ever heard of.

Why ? Because you're a beginner. You want a well supported distro with a bit of history behind it... Ubuntu has been around for a while now, you'll have no difficulty finding people in the community to hold your hand (whether on here, the "official" Ubuntu forums or elsewhere)... and there's little risk of Ubuntu being abandoned as a project any time soon.

Basically now is not the right time to start choosing your distro.... you can do that later. For now, you want the biggest and most widely adopted you can find. Ubuntu, Fedora and SUSE are the "big three" .... and probably in that order as well.

Now seacue will probably come back here and try to tell you how MINT is "based on Ubuntu"... but the fact is the further you go away from the source, the more quirks and individual ways of doing things you introduce to a system.... which is something a beginner really doesn't need to deal with .... once you've cut your teeth on one of the main distributions, then you can poke around the smaller distros and see if they suit you better.

As for where to start ? Well, its Linux ... so to some degree you're going to have to jump in on the deep end and accept the learning curve that you've taken on, its not particularly difficult on Ubuntu, but there are many things that Linux does differently to Windows, and it all depends how deeply you want to get into it (i.e. whether you wish to acknowledge the presence of a command line and the "real" operating system behind the pretty GUI). Maybe the link Bushfiva suggested, maybe one of the "For Dummies" books....or maybe just pure luck and solid determination ...... whatever suits your learning style.

I like fedora personally.

And there are plenty of "perfect fedora desktop" step by step tutorials.

Just miss out all the software your not interested in.

Fedora Project - Get Fedora: Desktops, Other Formats, Spins, Cloud Images, ARM or Secondary Arches.

Linux Today - The Perfect Desktop - Fedora 18 XFCE

Will give you step by step guides to all the main flavours.

A vote for Linux Mint
 

I started looking into Linux a year or so ago on the run-up to the death of XP, as I have 3 old machines that used XP and were not really capable of upgrading. With help from my brother-in-law, I went for Debian on one machine, and played around with that for a while. Subsequently, for the other two I went for Linux Mint Debian Cinnamon, which installed more easily and recognised more of the components without intervention from me.

Mint is hardly a minor Linux distro - it has the biggest number of hits on Distrowatch, 3724 against Ubuntu’s 2240!

I’ve found it very stable and pleasant to use with no hardware recognition problems.

For older hardware it is hard to do better than VectorLinux (Slackware based)

Mac

:ouch:

While Mxxxx implies that he has never heard of "minor" distributions like Linux Mint, Mint is the second-most common version of Linux today. Being based on Ubuntu, it has a wide range of downloadable applications. Ubuntu books can offer some background for Mint, and there is a 50-page downloadable "Getting Started" PDF for Mint. I'll post the exact title when I return home. To my mind, Ubuntu suffers from the MS disease, drastically changing the human interface just to be changing it, not to be friendlier, etc.

While I haven't tried it, Red Hat makes good money supporting a commercial version of Linux. Their free version is Fedora.

Whilst not wishing to undermine Mixture's undoubted expertise, I would ask if he has ever used or seen Linux Mint Mate.

I have moved on from Windows XP in the past few months, using Android, Linux Mint Mate (On three old laptops) and Windows 8.1 on a new HP Laptop.
The machine of I usually use is my Acer Extensa 5220 running 64 bit Linux Mint 13, it does most things "straight out of the box". Though the Broadcom WiFi was a bit of a problem, but that is common on all Linux distros and I haven't yet cracked networking machines with dynamic IP addressing.

After years of using Windows XP, I find that it is similar, but different to XP. By this I mean it is obviously not XP, but I feel comfortable using it and things seem to work if you use XP logic. HP printers are just a matter of plugging in and HPLIP does it all and in under a minute you are asked if you want to print a test page.

There seems to be an equivalent for most things from XP, Thunderbird for Outlook Express, Banshee for Media Player, Libre Office for Microsoft Office etc within the standard Linux Mint Download, and the Synaptic Package Manager hasn't failed to find other things for me yet.

I would agree with Seacue, papabravowhiskey and Mac the Knife on this one.

Having a quick look at the Specs (American) for your Compac N600c, it has 2 USB ports and a DVD ROM drive, so loading so be achievable. The stopper will be RAM, my ThikPad T41 with 512MB can be quite slow, but it does work. The specs I saw for your machine said it will only support a max of 384MB.

SawMan,

I put Linux Mint 16 (Petra) onto a Compaq Evo N610c not long ago. The spec. is 1.8GHz single-core, with 1GB RAM. I have a D-Link DWL-G650 wifi adapter that was found and configured by the OS, so I was quite impressed by that.

I've installed Libre Office (or rather it was installed in the setup routine), and I can browse the web and do some rudimentary office-type work.

It's certainly not fast, but it's not impossibly / glacially slow. I have to say that it's noticeably slower at doing the above than the equivalent Windows XP & Office XP installation it ran throughout its working life (2002 - 2008).

But it won't run Win 7, so Linux is an improvement over that!

SD

I wouldn't trust Distrowatch's numbers.... I think there's very little doubt that Ubuntu trumps Mint on adoption..... Ubuntu has all the business server and desktop users to start with that Mint doesn't, before you add on their home user base with is almost certainly larger than Mint's.

I'd go for Mint too, and for an older machine, probably the XFCE edition so as not to slow things down with fancy graphics. If you can wait a few more weeks, they ought to have the Mint 17 version of that available, with support to 2019.

Seriously, VectorLinux is a good choice for an old machine - try it if the fat distros feel a bit slow. It is an old and very well established distro based on Patrick Volkerding's Slackware, which is known to be a bit conservative and very stable.

Slackware is a bit of a purists distro and can be somewhat tedious if you are not familiar with Linux and the command line - VectorLinux just makes it easy.

Lean, mean and fast on older hardware (and still looks good)

Mac

:ouch:

Wow, a lot more responses and info than I expected :ok: I had heard of Ubuntu being relatively easy to learn and work with, but I'd never heard of Mint, and it seems to have some advantages over Ubuntu for my old machine. I did a RAM upgrade on it a few years ago but was advised that I shouldn't max it out because it might make it unstable. It's going to be a learning tool so the slowest component is probably going to be me for quite a long time. Now that I know where to look and what to look for I should be able to find whatever I need from here on my own, but if I get stuck I now know where to ask for advice!

Many Thanks to All :D

A few days ago I promised a 50-page PDF "Getting Started ..." for LinuxMint. My memory was its usual poor self. The title is "Official User Guide Linux Mint" I have the Mate version.

http://www.linuxmint.com/documentati...glish_15.0.pdf

This is available in a number of languages. I use Mint 13, a LTS (Long Term Support) version. The next LTS version will be 17, to be issued this May (they say). The LTS versions are based on Ubuntu LTS versions.

About the first half of the "Guide" involves downloading and installing Mint. Don't let that frighten you. The rest involves actual use.

Since I had been using the Firefox browser and Thunderbird email for a long time, transition to Linux did not require relearning for these applications.

Most recent versions of Linux (including Ubuntu & Mint) come with the LibreOffice suite. This uses the open source code base of OpenOffice, which I have used for years. So there was essentially no learning required going from OpenOffice to LibreOffice. All the application names (word processor, spreadsheet, etc) are the same and the file extensions are the same. Since OpenOffice is "open source", the LibreOffice people could take the code without legal problems. Generally, the word processor, spreadsheet, etc, etc, of Open/LibreOffice can directly produce PDF without the need for other applications. Their defaults are the ISO standard ODF formats which MS "x" processors (docx...) can generally read - and the Open/Libre applications can read and write MS DOC, DOCX, etc., files.

A comparison, for what it's worth....
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Linux_Mint_vs_Ubuntu

Mint is where many of us Ubuntu users went after Ubuntu decided to push their netbook interface onto those who run Linux on 24" monitors.

And, I will admit, it was a pretty good netbook interface. But a lousy one for big screens.

Mint 17 is just coming out, which will be supported for several years. However, a distro designed specifically for older and slower machines may make sense. Looks like I have 1.6GB in use in Mint 16 with a dozen Firefox windows, Thunderbird and LibreOffice running, and a DVD playing in VLC.

Oh, and everyone I know who runs a business server or desktop on Linux is using Red Hat or a derivative (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). But I'm sure some run Ubuntu for the newest and shiniest apps.

Hi Sawman,

Just my 2p worth.

With Linux there are two key decisions you have to make:

1. Which desktop you want; and

2. Which 'package manager'.

Desktop:
This is a flame hot topic in the linux community, but ultimately a matter of personal taste. For what its worth, I am most comfortable with Cinnamon, which comes natively with mint, but I use it with CENTOS. The main desktops are Gnome (used to use, but ditched), KDE, XFCE and Cinnamon
As an aside:
I disagree: Fedora is the community research version of Red Hat and as such is replaced every six months. CENTOS IS the Red hat commercial version just without the branding, as such it is supported over longer replacement cycles.

Package manager:
This is the major difference between flavours of linux. Most software in linux is installed using a package manager, which takes care of all dependencies and conflicts. Debian/ubuntu use apt (command line)/ Synaptic (GUI) whereas Fedora/CENTOS use rpm/yum.

Fedora/centos tend to have a larger ram/disk space requirement than the debian and relatives so that may be the better option in your particular case. I would definately echo the 'try the live usb option'. That will quickly identify if the distribution can identify all your peripherials like network cards etc.

HTH

EG

I've used Mint 13 (Mate) succesfully on a number of machines, for a low-end example, this MSI U100. But I'm having very poor luck when I try to use Mint 17 (Mate). Either it hangs during loading of a live flash drive, or or..... The touted "friendlyness" seems to have been lost - at least as far as installation.

With VectorLinux your MSI U100 will fly.

It really is a very good distro for that sort of machine (which will never perform well with any of the later Ubuntus or Mints)

"A voice crying in the wilderness"

Mac

:suspect:

Ubuntu is a good choice for getting started with Linux. There are better distributions for desktops, servers or people who want to tinker. But since Ubuntu is based on Debian, its a good starting point to lean that if at some point you want to go 'full geek' and pull up a command line. If not, it may serve you as your final O/S for the foreseeable future.

Ubuntu is Bantu for 'I don't know how to configure Debian'. ;)

Well, my Linux experience has not been brilliant I must say. After all the dreaded warnings here and elsewhere about what will happen to XP as soon as support stopped in April, I did my research as carefully as I could and settled on trying out Linux Mint as a replacement OS. On fitting a new hard drive to my system I first installed XP (with all it's updates) and then installed Mint from the downloaded .iso file. The system worked and when instructed to do so installed itself as a dual boot system (using "grub"?). It immediately found my internet connection and updated itself to its latet version. So far so good. I soon found the equivalents of Office which were happy with my old windoze data files but then I attempted to install a driver for my Canon printer. There are two linux versions available, but neither would install. Of all daft things I then decided to install my desktop picture - one I obtained from the flightdeck of an A320 at FL330 heading north over Italy with lots of towering Cu below - you know the sort of thing. Although I managed to do this, it was impossible for me to find the hidden folder in which the file should be copied so it would appear at startup. No, all I got was a blank screen. To get the required image I had to tell it what to use and then it required a password to access the disk partition on which the file was located. This was taking too long - and I didn't have a printer anyway so after a couple of attempts I gave it up as a bad job and have now acquired a license for Win7 so I will be able to use its XP facility to run all my ancient software.

P.P.

Well, it is a different OS so things will be done differently to Windows and there will be a learning curve so some patience is required and persistence.

Well, yes it is and yes it does require patience.

But.... its not exactly Windows or Mac OS X is it ?

Linux desktops are still very much Linux with a desktop bolted on as a bit of an afterthought. And that is not going to change any time soon because of the way linux works... GNOME (or whatever your choice of desktop environment) are all maintained, designed and coded separately from the main project and then provided/added to the repository as an optional package.

I'll grant you that the "experience" has gotten better over the years, but it's still light years away from the sort of experience you get from a Desktop OS that has been designed, coded and maintained from the ground up as a Desktop product.

Realistically, there is very little chance indeed of Linux Desktops becoming as good as Mac OS X (which is indeed BSD with an Apple developed desktop on top), because the joined-up thinking and development simply does't exist, and given the politics and development style of Linux, will never exist.

I don't blame P.Pilcher one bit for his decision.

Oh gawd, you really can't help yourself can you Mixture? What difference does it make that the whether the GUI sits atop a command line or not?

What's that, don't like the sound of truth ? :E

I think you know exactly what difference it makes in the world of software development.

Heavily compartmentalised software development with different teams of developers developing different packaged products and all operating independently (since the various Linux packages are all independent projects) with no central management or project management structure is not exactly the recipe for building a coherent desktop operating system that the average non-technical user will find usable.

As they say .... you can't polish a !!!!, but you can roll it in glitter.

That's exactly the case with Linux desktops. Sure you can make the GUI all fancy pretty.... but if your development style is to wash your hands of what's going on in the backend then you're never going to be able to deliver a final product that's anywhere near as integrated as Windows or OS X.

I remember when Linux Red Hat was sold at alternative record shops along with the Zappa and Floyd - you had to be part of the herd. P.Pilcher you had no chance at all.

This is some interesting discussion.

You do remember Windows was born as nothing more than an 'addon' to DOS right?

I wouldn't go as far as to say that linux on the desktop is a 'polished !!!!'. It has come a very long way in the past few years. - Considering it is free and open source I don't think there is any room for complaint. It is ideal for what the OP is asking for here. You've got a very secure, solid system with free security updates. - The latest version of Ubuntu or Fedora will work with pretty much anything out of the box. You can have just as much trouble getting your old crusty printer or temperamental wifi connection working in windows 8 (and 7!) - It is definitely no more difficult to learn to use than making the transition from Win to OSX for the non teccys. (Or indeed the transition from Win7 to the farse that is Windows 8)

Also, have you heard of Android? - That seems to work alright for just a few non-technical users.

The whole point of Linux is that it's open. We don't want an integrated desktop from the ground up. We want choice. This is why it exists as it does today.

That may well be, but it was all project managed and delivered as one 'windows' project.

It really is not the case with Linux, every single bit of a Linux distro ranging from the Kernel upwards is a series of independently developed and maintained packages coded with different people with different coding styles, ideologies etc.

All the Linux distro disk does is say ... 'here you go.... one disk that will install Linux kernel and a bunch of CLI/GUI tools for you without you having to spend your time going out collecting them all and compiling them yourself'.... kde/gnome or whatever desktop they choose to bundle is just a.n. other package sourced from elsewhere that they've just added some fancy graphics to in order to make it look pretty.

Android is actually a purpose built integrated system with a specific embedded purpose in mind.

You can't compare it to a Linux Distro' which is basically a bundle of Linux software readily available elsewhere and the only real difference between "desktop" Linux distros being the degree to which they try to make the GUI look all fancy.

The GUI in a linux distro still remains independently developed and that is why the degree to which it does/does not tie in to the backend remains patchy and at times painful and scares the average user off because they need to resort to CLI for this or that.

I've used Ubuntu 14 Desktop, its nowhere near where OS X or Windows is today, it lags behind.

Geezuz. The old linux v ms v apple debate again!

The best OS is the one you favour. For general use they are all the same. They all have firefox and or chrome. They all have email clients. They all have word processors and spreadsheets. A vanilla install for a non technical user they are all the same. If you have not used one, you will struggle with the other. If you use it for long enough you will learn to understand it.

My advice is always to stick with what you are familiar with. If you want to learn and experiment, then sure, have a crack at another OS. IF you are time poor and not willing to learn, they just stick with what you have. Simple hey?

As for which one is better, well thats all very subjective these days. I use linux, windows and osx. I personally know windows better so I prefer it. But osx and linux are similar (UI exluded) so the transition is easier.