What distro would you recommend for a beginner?

[Nettly_]

If you know me, you know I am asking out of curiosity to see what people think are good distributions. If any questions on why me, a very much experienced Linux user, would ask this question DM me.

 

Now I want to also see some reasoning (eg. "because this distro's GUI is simple to navigate and folders are not set up like a drunk *COUGH COUGH* SAFYRE!!!" In which if you do say that I will reply "HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT OS I MADE!?!?!?!?" (see I am tired but curious))

[Sauron]

Usually I recommend Ubuntu MATE, it's nice to look at, it has a pretty good welcome screen and it's Ubuntu so there are plenty of online resources to look at if you have problems. There may be slightly better options but beyond a certain point it barely matters so I'd rather go for something that I know is consistent.

 

Also no, I wouldn't recommend actually using LFS to anyone. It's not intended to be used as a normal distribution.

[Razor Blade]

Beginner distros of linux... well the Debian variety would be pretty good start since there are instructions and tutorials literally everywhere for anything you can imagine... Ubuntu MATE (as stated above) is a great distro since it is so popular. Another one would be Linux Mint with the Cinnamon desktop (as long as the computer can handle it) since it has a feel kind of similar to windows.

 

I started an elderly neighbor on Linux mint after having a lot of problems with adware, malware, and Windows updates breaking everything... He picked up mint cinnamon surprisingly fast! I did a few housekeeping things for "behind the scenes" management like installing ad blockers, adding update commands to run with a cron job, and locking down the account by creating a separate admin account. Recently I moved him over to a more minimal distro after he got used to mint. I couldn't help myself...I upgraded his laptop to 8GB of RAM and an SSD... To see his complete amazement with the sub 30 second cold boot to desktop time on an older laptop made it worth every penny to me.

[wasab]

I never use it. I never tried it. I follow Linus Torvalds wisdom, if it is too hard to install, I won't touch it. 

 

The only thing I ever install that is consider difficult is Arch. It was fun to install but not great distro to be your main daily driver. 

[Den15]

Pop!_OS

 

Because it's damn easy to install and navigate and has either intel/amd or nvidia iso options, so yeah, plus System 76's page for the OS is awesomely beautiful... and it's a beautiful desktop environment.

 

 

[Edward78]

I have the none debian mint, I think it is good, I am wondering about debian mint though, but is deb mint good, it doesn"t come with MATE I don:t think though/

[bor]

I used a lot of Linux Distro and can clearly say Linux Mint is the best distro for Beginners and Windows users.

[Dat Guy]

I would not recommend Linux at all. If you absolutely insist on trying one, you have three options according to your initial post:

• Gentoo. Like LFS, but with some stuff preinstalled. Installing it for the first time will take a few days, but you will have a system without any surprises then - you need to decide what to include with every software.
• Slackware. A no-bullshit desktop distribution, comes with everything and the kitchen sink. Still, there is some compiling involved (via Slackbuilds) if you need third-party applications which are not a part of the distribution itself. Those are not many though.
• Void. A very fast and stable KISS distribution which took some inspiration from Arch and developed it further. It is the easiest to install and use on this list. No regular maintenance needed in my experience.

Stay away from distributions which require the systemd init system (Debian, Mint, *buntu, Arch, Fedora, ...). It is a giant monolith with ongoing issues, regularly leading to non-booting systems and broken network connections. Don't even think about using that.

 

edit:

7 hours ago, Edward78 said:

it doesn"t come with MATE

You can install most desktop environments on most distributions. Don't choose your distribution only because of its default desktop. That makes no sense at all.

[Wild Penquin]

2 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

Stay away from distributions which require the systemd init system (Debian, Mint, *buntu, Arch, Fedora, ...). It is a giant monolith with ongoing issues, regularly leading to non-booting systems and broken network connections. Don't even think about using that. 

That's quite strongly put. I know there are people who don't like systemd, and some discussion and controversies revolving around it. I've never gotten into the bottom of it, but I'd really be interested in hearing why you have such a strong opinion against it.

 

There are some things I don't like in systemd, but it is still manageable. I don't know enough about the internals and different use cases to really have a insightful opinion either way (betweeen systemd, openRC or some other init system). OpenRC was much simpler and easier to handle from an amateurs tinkering perspective.

 

Given the current information, I definitely disagree with the part I quoted (staying away from systemd). Like it or not, systemd has become a kind of industry-standard in most current Linux distributions. If need arises going deeper into the configuration of the distribution, most documentation is now made with systemd in mind. One might even say, other init systems are dying (none of the distributions you mentioned are mainstream in any way). I'd say a beginner ought to choose a mainstream distribution in any case!

 

There already are other suggestions in the thread. I'd stay away from Gentoo, unless the user wishes to tinker for tinkerings sake, or has some very special needs in regards to deploying some software into various different environments (Gentoo makes compiling with different settings and even cross-compiling somewhat more easier and automated than other distributions).

[Dat Guy]

20 minutes ago, Wild Penquin said:

I don't know enough about the internals and different use cases to really have a insightful opinion either way

Try this for a start: https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/

 

22 minutes ago, Wild Penquin said:

Like it or not, systemd has become a kind of industry-standard

So has Windows. That does not mean that not using Windows was a bad idea in general.

 

23 minutes ago, Wild Penquin said:

I'd stay away from Gentoo, unless the user wishes to tinker for tinkerings sake

The OP asked about LFS, so my suggestion to try Gentoo was not entirely unreasonable, I think.  

[wasab]

6 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

Try this for a start: https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/

For consumers, what init system they run on is irrelevant. It is like you debating the merit of an operating system by the file system it uses. Who cares if it is NTFS or ext4? Both does the same job. No average desktop users are ever going to touch systemd. It is more of something for IT proffesional to debate over. 

[Dat Guy]

For consumers, a reliable init system is rather important. Don't use one that breaks your booting.

[bcredeur97]

I'm gonna go against the crowd here and say systemd is /fine/.

I mean Redhat uses it. It can't be that bad... if huge enterprises are using it and they are fine...

I've been running ubuntu on a macbook for sooo long even have done dist upgrades and even upgraded the OS from 16.04 to 18.04 to now 19.04 without any issues. I normally only use this laptop for basic things

[Dat Guy]

57 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

if huge enterprises are using it and they are fine...

Red Hat makes money by providing support if shit hits the fan. systemd could be a weapon for them.

[bcredeur97]

1 hour ago, Dat Guy said:

Red Hat makes money by providing support if shit hits the fan. systemd could be a weapon for them.

could be. But I really don't think it's as bad as you make it sound to be

[wasab]

19 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

For consumers, a reliable init system is rather important. Don't use one that breaks your booting.

If systemd bricks on boot, why would it be included in the first place? Company and distro developers arent idiots. Systemd is a completely useable init system for an average consumer. This huge controversy is very much a none issue for those who just want to seek a windows replacement. 

[Dat Guy]

Just now, wasab said:

If systemd bricks on boot, why would it be included in the first place? 

It's called lobbyism.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Dat Guy said:

It's called lobbyism.

No, you are simply raising issue a consumer oreinted Linux desktop user like me simply don't care. Features of systemd are mostly relevent to server admins. This is like arguing windows home has no advance domain functionality vs pro or enterprise when an average home user won't even touch these in any shape or form. 

[Nettly_]

this was not my intent lmao

[Dat Guy]

How is a system that won't boot properly irrelevant for consumers?

[wasab]

Just now, Dat Guy said:

How is a system that won't boot properly irrelevant for consumers?

Because it always booted for me and so did all others who use systemd init system? Like I said, what you talk about is none issue. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. 

[Dat Guy]

"Works for me" is not the same thing as "it's not broken". Also remember that systemd intended to fix the perfectly working SysV init once.

[Nettly_]

[wasab]

2 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

"Works for me" is not the same thing as "it's not broken". Also remember that systemd intended to fix the perfectly working SysV init once.

Dude, most mainstream distros are on systemd. Whatever brokenness you mention does not translate to real world issue for home consumers.

[Dat Guy]

Dude, most mainstream desktops are on Windows. How is quantity relevant if you want a working system?