I am trying to learn some new things within the IT support area.
I am a Desktop support technician and I have only been working in the windows realm, however I would like to expand my knowledge as to keep relevent in the IT world.
Can anyone recomend the best flavor of Linux to begin with? You know something easy to manipulate.
Also any recomended Linux beginers guides that are easy for someone like me?
Thanks in advance
It all depends on the field you want to do support in. If it's mainly enterprises, you'll probably want to use an RPM-based distro like Fedora or OpenSuSE.
If it's consumer support, you'll probably want to use a consumer distro, like Ubuntu or Mint or anything based thereof.
If you need to do both, Debian is probably a good choice.
If you need to support education and science/research, you also definitely have to know Arch next to RPM-based distros.
To start out with, I always recommend Manjaro linux these days. It's easy to use, lightweight, rolling release without breakage, has the basic but familiar XFCE DE, is fully arch compatible, has several installers, the Mint display manager, comes with all the proprietary-but-ever-so-useful software regular users like, like proprieatry graphics drivers, flash, Steam, etc... and it doesn't have the bugs, spyware, security issues, USB problems and resource hunger of Ubunty with Unity, plus it's based on arch, which is a great way to learn GNU/Linux quickly and thoroughly if you want to step into advanced knowledge.
It's perfectly normal for an advanced linux user to have several distros at the same time and switch distros often. I would also recommend that to stay on top of the evolution of the different GNU/Linux families.
"To start out with, I always recommend Manjaro linux these days. It's easy to use, lightweight, rolling release without breakage, has the basic but familiar XFCE DE, is fully arch compatible, has several installers, the Mint display manager, comes with all the proprietary-but-ever-so-useful software regular users like, like proprieatry graphics drivers, flash, Steam, etc... and it doesn't have the bugs, spyware, security issues, USB problems and resource hunger of Ubunty with Unity, plus it's based on arch, which is a great way to learn GNU/Linux quickly and thoroughly if you want to step into advanced knowledge."
Ok which distro are you talking about here "Mint" or "Manjaro"?
Does Manjaro have all of which you mentioned or are you talking about them seperately?
Sorry for the newbish question but I seem to be a bit retarded this morning...
I was talking about Manjaro Linux. You can get it at manjaro.org.
GNU/Linux is free and open source software, which means that Manjaro can take what they need from other development communities and vice versa. The Mint community did a great job on making a GUI installer and a display manager, so Manjaro just uses those. Manjaro also uses the core system developed by the Arch Community, uses the email client and web browser developed by the Mozilla devs and community, etc... and the Manjaro development community then makes sure it all works together perfectly, and adds a few things of it's own (like the great update manager, tested update packages in their own repos, the incredibly great mhwd tools, etc...), adds some proprietary stuff that most home users want (proprietary graphics drivers for gaming, flash for internet entertainment, a preconfigured bumblebee setup for nvdia+intel laptop users, etc...), to come up with a stable, modern, pretty leading edge, traditional looking but highly configurable, very compatible distro, which they run on their own build of the linux kernel, and they maintain the whole thing and provide support for it. That's the way FOSS works, by leveraging community development, a small group of people can therefore deliver a much higher quality product than any closed source software corporation. The arch linux community is great, it's quite a achievement to provide a top quality bleeding edge independant GNU/Linux distro, and it's going stronger than ever before, but unfortunately, Arch likes to profile itself as an enthusiast distro, and for a beginner, I would not advise it, because it's pretty technical to do a full CLI install that is really optimised for your individual system, and the Arch support forum as a strong RTFM mentality, which is OK because their documentation is great, but a beginner doesn't always know where to start. That problem is complely solved with Manjaro. There are fora in all common European languages, and the community is very helpful, and the distro itself is very easy to install and use out of the box, and it will give you enough understanding about linux to become an enthusiast really fast.
Manjaro is just a project by a handful of young linux enthusiasts, but they take their distro very seriously, and even though it's still officially in beta (now at version 0.8.7, not that versions matter very much because it's a rolling release distro just like arch, so everyone always has the latest updates), it's already a solid distro with enough features for even advanced users to use it on a daily basis.
I've always been skeptical of Manjaro, mainly because half of the Arch developers have nothing positive to say about it.
I still don't understand how three devs can possibly maintain 6000+ packages.
This seems like an impossible task to keep on top of security issues.
Nothing against Manjaro but I wouldn't be recommending it to Linux neophytes.
I'd say jump straight into Arch or Gentoo, especially If you work in IT. You'll pick up Linux quickly, because you'll have no choice.
Or if you can't be bothered learning anything, just install one of the many *buntus
Lolz, are Arch devs positive about anything but Arch?
Arch may launch updates a few days earlier than Manjaro, but at least, Manjaro makes sure that the updates don't break the system, which is a very frequently occuring thing with Arch.
That's not criticism towards Arch either, I think it's the best GNU/Linux distro, because it's totally independant and still bleeding edge, quite the achievement. But those few days won't make a difference if it takes Debian based distros a few months to roll out the same update, or if other distros have to wait for the next version. Manjaro is still a whole lot safer than non-rolling release distros or Debian/Ubuntu-based distros or slower RPM-based distros like OpenSuSE or Mageia/ROSA, and even with those, I've never heard of a real security problem.
It's a fact that Arch and Fedora will no doubt be the safest distros in theory, but you have to put the "security risk" into perspective: even without updates, there is hardly any security risk in linux anyway. I have no clue what "security issues" there would be...
Very impressed by the skills of the Arch dev community, not impressed by their criticism towards other distros. If there is one thing a lot of members of the Arch dev community don't know, then that's how to communicate like non-socially-handicapped civilized human beings lol. The GNU/Linux world is big enough for everyone, rivalry brings nothing. Distro hopping is a fact of life.
The Arch devs/maintainers are definitely passionate about what they do, as I'm sure the same could be said about Ying and Phil with Manjaro and Chakra.
"Manjaro makes sure that the updates don't break the system, which is a very frequently occuring thing with Arch."
Are you saying Manjaro is more stable than Arch?
This is pure hyperbole. It's entirely up to the user how often they update.
If you decide to use Manjaro testing or unstable repos Manjaro will break, I can promise you that. Caveat emptor applies with both distros, the difference is that Arch users generally know the possible outcomes of keeping bleeding edge.
If there is one thing a lot of members of the Arch dev community don't know, then that's how to communicate like non-socially-handicapped civilized human beings lol.
Zomg a socially inept linux user ad nauseum - this never gets old Zoltan.
Yeah that was exactly the point why I recommend Manjaro for beginners, Manjaro offers more guidance so that users learn to understand bleeding edge vs conservative. By default Manjaro ships with the 3.4LTS kernel, but they maintain 3,8, 3,10 and 3,11 also, and you can easily switch between multiple kernels using mhwd. Arch doesn't offer that kind of guidance, Manjaro also has multiple installers, assisted CLI or GUI, etc... and I totally agree that Arch is a great distro to really learn GNU/Linux, and Manjaro is basically Arch, is fully compatible with the arch repos and AUR, it's still KISS, it has the performance of Arch, just the first steps are made easy, I think that's great for beginners.
Meh, I don't agree that many linux users are socially inept, that's not my experience at least, it's just that there is a tradition of linux dev style communications to uphold, which I totally approve of, and with some Arch devs that's taken to another level, which I still approve of, they have the scars to prove that they earned that right, but it's not always "salonfähig" lol
No, it's not Arch, per se. It's a variant of arch - just like ArchBang. I would say both are good for getting into Arch. But, if you want a real challenge, you should jumb directly in ArchLinux. I actually moved from Windows 7 to ArchLinux a few days ago. Never touched Linux before - hell of an experience. The installation isn't as daunting as one might think. And I havn't experienced a major update just yet. But, I have experienced a few breaks (Particularly with AMD closed-source drivers). Though, with the install cd, you can easily mount everything, arch-chroot into it, and then fix what needs to be fixed.
But, one word of warning: Use the wiki. Without it, if you know nothing of linux, you will not be able to install unless you have access to a chat room. The ArchLinux wiki is very well done. So, it's a very important tool. WIth it, you can do anything with ArchLinux.
Also, if you go into ArchLinux, your most important ressource, in the beginning: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginner%27s_Guide
Yes it's Arch, completely 100% compatible with the Arch repos and AUR, it only uses a slightly custom kernel, some but not so much different packages, and it's own repos to buffer the update packages from Arch so that there is less breakage, and it comes out of the box in a remix with practical software that most beginning (but also advanced) users find useful. That makes it more of a spin or remix than a different distro, even though it has it's own packages, like mhwd, pamac/octopi, etc...
If you don't know anything of linux, you shouldn't start with Arch, you'll simply get the wrong first impression of linux, and won't learn as fast, because you'll have to deal with advanced problems before having learned the basics, and that is not a good basis for learning... that's my opinion as a user that has used linux as main OS since 1996.
Having to manually mount drives and use a chroot to prepare and install a distro, IS NOT the right way to get acquainted with a new operating system... putting in the live DVD and hitting the power button and being presented with a nice GUI and an automatic config that guides you through the whole basic install in less than 5 minutes so that you can first learn the basic usage, IS.
That's where our opinions diverge. But, without going into semantics, it is not Arch. It is based on Arch. To extend your remix analogy, a song remix is hardly the song it is based on. It is only a variant of the song: another intepretation of it. Thus it is not The Song. Also, just because that remix might still be enjoyed by the original's listeners (Relating to it's compatibility with AUR and the likes), doesn't mean it is The Song.
Now, I'm not claiming to be a Linux expert. In fact, as stated above, I've just entered into Linux a few days ago. But, I feel as though the Arch Way approach fits my needs much more than the "Hold My Hand" approach that other distros tend to put forth. It really depends on your needs as an OS user. Hence the reason I am not trying to disprove your definition of how one should get aquainted with an OS. Because, from my point of view, getting at the core of the OS, learning what happens behind the pleasant GUIs, is the way to learn about an operating system, if you require that.
I say that because most only need to be up and running because they couldn't care less what happens behind the curtain. What they need is that it works. What I need is to understand the OS: get in the gritty details of it all. And, then, once I understand the core, I can branch out and understand the auxillary systems (Like GUIs).
If the one asking for support would be a tech-savy lawyer needing to get Open Office working. Then, it would be a different story. We would be suggesting to install Mint or Ubuntu. But since we're dealing with someone wanting to understand (presumably) what's happening behind the curtains, then the Arch philosophy is likely the way to go.
Also, there's the issue of what an OS is, at it's core. I feel as though your definition of OS is the GUIs, when the GUIs are only but the Windows Manager, the Desktop Environment, etc. They are the auxillary systems. The core of the OS is behind that. Even behind the command line. Since we can't understand binary like a machine can, that's why I stay content with understanding the command line.
I'd cut your teeth on Ubuntu with either Cinnamon or Mint. Do this for at least a week, then switch to an other distribution (distro = type or flavor of Linux) and try that for about a week, then an other and so on until you find one that you like a lot. You will be able to keep your information like docs and such even though you're switching distributions. Avoid 'BackTrack' until you have an outstanding command of Linux though. I strongly recommend either Mint or Cinnamon first tho, they are the most 'windows' like that I've seen and they come with things like adobe flash already installed, configured, and most important, working. Some experienced users forget that a Linux newbie doesn't understand just how frustrating the fractured community of Linux can be. And finding information about how to install software that does not install natively in the software management can be a complete pain in the @$$ the first time around. Experienced users have learned the workarounds and understand how to work with some of the different mechanics of Linux that seem native to the Windows environment.
As far as information about Linux, and how to work in it, with it, and understand it I'd look at some YouTube vids from Nixie Pixel, and theurbanpenguin because they're really really good at breaking down Linux for a 1st time user. An other YouTube fav of mine is http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz-OcWomyQBgNhTk5SoictJfBvCfbhgn3 (Linux Tutorial Series) which is just freaking outstanding.
Of course there are a lot of informative websites too, but, I'd stick to the community for your specific distribution of Linux. Each distribution has it's quirks and nuances and and it's community web page will have all of the information regarding that specific distro's learning tools.
I'm sure you'll love Linux, a lot of the command line functionality is robust and way way more powerful than just about every other OS out there. Have fun!!
Sorry mate, I don't see the point you want to make, let's just say that your experiences with linux in those 7 days you've been using it are diametrically opposed to my experiences with linux in the last 17 years and let's keep it at that.
Indeed, those are impressions. But, that does not make my opinion any less valid than yours. And keep in mind that these are opinions, that's been developped on reading on the subject as well as using Linux myself. I know many YouTube linux users who's been using Linux since it's inception that would likely agree with my view of what linux, at it's core, is.
You claim that Linux are the DEs and the WMs and that below that is not important. I claim that Linux is everything relating to DEs, WMs, Kernels, Distros. That's all Linux. My point is that Linux isn't just about the fancy GUIs, but also about it's underlying systems. And that for an IT technician, it seems logical to say that one should put as much value on the GUI as the underlying systems. I only suggest going from the core to the outer systems because without the drivers, the GUI wouldn't function. Without the kernel, the drivers wouldn't function, etc. It all seems to lead to the idea that the core of a system is probably the best area to first learn about and then branch out to the outer systems.
So our conflict seems to stem from the following conundrum: What is better: Learning the system from it's superficial layers to the core. Or dig directly to core and learn layer by layer. I think it's really to the OP to decide in accordance to his needs.
Also, I'm not sure I find the condescending tone to your comments necessary. I realize that I'm far from being experienced (And I try my best not to claim to be), but this patronizing vibe is far from being constructive.
You claim that Linux are the DEs and the WMs and that below that is not important.
Mind pointing me to the spot where I even said something that resembles something like that? I have a very strange feeling like we're talking a different language or so here mate, I don't see the same thing in my posts that you see in them I'm afraid.
I didn't say your opinion is invalid, but I really don't understand what you're trying to debate opinions with me about lol, I really don't see the link between what you respond and what I've posted. I want to see what this is getting at, but I really don't... I really mean no offense and don't feel like arguing when I don't even know what's happening, I'm very sorry.
My apologies. Keep in mind that I didn't take any offense to what you were saying. My impression was that you were putting your opinion above mine for the simple reason that you were in linux for longer, rather than because you provided an actual argument. Thus, putting you in a position of self-righteousness that made the whole thing feel condescending. Taking offense to a possibility when you could've meant otherwise would be the wrong way to go. Hence why I tried to keep an objective tone to it all.
The subject I was talking about was that of what would be better for our dear OP: To learn linux by diving straight in the sack of it (By using ArchLinux or other low-level distros) or to do the same by first being accustomed to it's different higher level possibilities (DE and WM).
I thought you were conflicting with my original statement by saying the following:
Having to manually mount drives and use a chroot to prepare and install a distro, IS NOT the right way to get acquainted with a new operating system... putting in the live DVD and hitting the power button and being presented with a nice GUI and an automatic config that guides you through the whole basic install in less than 5 minutes so that you can first learn the basic usage, IS.
I countered that argument by presuming that the OP's needs range around understanding the system rather than having it work in five minutes, Hence the reason I suggested ArchLinux because it would allow said OP to more quickly understand the underlying systems working in the background of DEs and WMs alike(Which is the actual OS).
My impression was that you were discounting my arguments because of more technical experience on your part when I was simply trying to argue the best strategy for the OP. I upped the tone because I focused more on the last 2/3rd of your previous comment rather than focusing on the part where you didn't understand where I was coming from. For that, I apologize. So, at least, we can come to a consensus on what would be the best way to get to know the system.
No appologies needed mate, I justed wanted to understand what was happening.
I'm starting to understand where the communication went wrong. I wasn't referring to the DE's GUI, I didn't even mention the DE, I was talking about the installer, and the difference between having to understand how it works before being able to install it and having it installed and ready to use and then understanding how everything works by customizing and optimizing the install and trying stuff out.
Anyway, I think we've strayed a bit from the OP's question and should probably exchange opinions about this at a later occasion, but I feel more comfortable now that I understand what was going on a bit more.
Definitely, glad we could bring this back to earth. ;).
"I'd cut your teeth on Ubuntu with either Cinnamon or Mint. Do this for at least a week, then switch to an other distribution (distro = type or flavor of Linux) and try that for about a week, then an other and so on until you find one that you like a lot. You will be able to keep your information like docs and such even though you're switching distributions. Avoid 'BackTrack' until you have an outstanding command of Linux though. I strongly recommend either Mint or Cinnamon first tho, they are the most 'windows' like that I've seen and they come with things like adobe flash already installed, configured, and most important, working"
I think I will follow this way , as it seems that most of my clients will be needing support on some type of "Buntu" distro and from what I gather the fairly new "Mint" distro.
Guys gotta keep in mind that I have been supporting the "NT" enviroment from Microsoft for quite awhile so I am pretty much like a new bourne trying to walk before running here. LOL
However I thank you all for the detailed advice, and I am sorry if I caused any undue strife about this topic...