Total Linux Neophyte seeks advice

[Henry]

...and that Neophyte would be me. I'm oriented with BSD Unix varieties on a "user" level, but have very little experience with Linux. What I seek is, in the opinion of Linux professionals of these forums, a Linux that has:

--a good file system for acting as a simple file server that would work seamlessly with Win2003 networks
--a version of Linux that is very functional but relatively easy to learn
--a version of Linux that has a very wide driver base to use.
--a version that would work well for a novice Linux user to grow with and learn as he used it in-house as a small auxiliary file server, so he could justify its existance to the company he works for.

I've heard Mandrake Linux being touted, as well as Slackware Linux, but wanted to get the opinions of the pros who inhabit this site. School me, and make me stronger, oh Linux Magi!

 

[Psionicist]

Ubuntu of course!

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

Ubuntu is not only easier to install than Windows XP, you can download a live CD version of it and experiment to see if you like it. There's also a very nice community (being the most popular linux distro right now). For example, http://ubuntuguide.org/ has step-by-step introductions for everything from installing programs to communicating with windows networks etc.

The current version is 5.10 (for october 2005). A new version is released every 6 months.

 

[IronWolf]

I haven't played with Ubuntu so I will refrain from commenting on it one way or the other.

My production Linux boxes run either Debian or CentOS. I have been quite happy with both and both have proven quite reliable in the corporate environment. My Debian box handles all incoming email - scanning for spam and viruses, acts as a proxy server authenticating to Active Directory and will soon be handling some backend pieces of one of the software products my company writes.

My CentOS box runs an internal helpdesk, internal project tracking server, bug tracking and holds our CVS repository. It too has been really reliable so far.

And to add to your list, if you have BSD experience have you considered FreeBSD? I have always had very positive experiences with FreeBSD (ran my first CounterStrike server on it).

 

[Cergorach]

I currently use Fedora Core 4 x86_64 for my desktop, for some reason i'm not seeing myself using that for my fileserver. I think i'll go with Debian, and although it doesn't get a complete overhaul every six months, it does get regular security updates. Let's be honest we aren't waiting to reinstall our fileserver every six months, now are we...

There is a reason we pay $200 for windows XP, it works so much quicker out of the box. The time ie spent getting my Linux box running even close to how my windows box ran took a LOT of time, there have been many times i've thought "Screw it all to ****! I'll install windows again." But time and again principel got the better of me, so i'm still working on my linux box... If my mind wasn't set on linux due to some idealistic notions i would have gone back to windows in a flash (with all it's faults), sure it might be taht linux is cheaper money wise, but time wise it's way more expensive, so much so that if i spent 5% of the time i spent 'configuring' linux flipping burgers i could have bought a Windows XP license for every computer in the house.

I've found out that if i want to play games on my box that aren't available for linux, i better dual install windows beside Linux if i want to play them (i hope that wine makes a couple of immense leaps the comming year).

 

[silvermane]

I have used Red Hat and PLD (an offshot of same) extensively from about 1998 to 2002. I do not bother with Linux now. The reason is that the CAT (computer aided translation) apps I use to work with only run on Windows and there are no Linux versions of, say, Trados. Neither is there a Linux CAT app that would be compatible with Trados' databases. Also there are other necessary apps that have no Linux equivalent (such as soccer statistics software). Conversely, most Linux apps, including GTK and Python-based, are available on Windows.

Another reason is that since I last used it, Linux has become extensively Windows-like, to the point that the GUI is selected dy default upon installation. This would be fine if everything more or less worked out of the box. But, alas, it does not. Whether it is the DSL connection or the graphics card, you always have to look under the hood and edit the configuration files like in days of yore, except that now you need to manually run a text console to do that.

 

[Henry]

There is a reason we pay $200 for windows XP, it works so much quicker out of the box. The time ie spent getting my Linux box running even close to how my windows box ran took a LOT of time, there have been many times i've thought "Screw it all to ****! I'll install windows again."

I'm in a corporate office environment, so I'm getting my Windows XP fix, believe me.

I want to thank everyone so far for the responses. I'm torn between Ubuntu and Debian based on the suggestions here. I've tried Red Hat in the past (had some bad experiences with drivers that JUST WOULDN'T WORK! in Red Hat 7) but I'm ready to try again, and have a slightly more powerful box as a spare to play with (my first test box three years ago was a Pentium 100, which was no picnic, but the newer one will be an AMD 1600-2000 flavor with about 512 MB RAM.) I know Linux has far less stringent requirements than WinXP, is this still the case?

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

I'm torn between Ubuntu and Debian based on the suggestions here.

If I can sway you one way or the other, I'd say go with Ubuntu. That's what I've got running on a second box here in my office, and I love it (not that I get to use it for much other than tinkering around). Of course, i'm running v4.10, so I should probably upgrade things.

 

[XCorvis]

Oh yes, that box will run great.

Personally, I'd go with FreeBSD. I've learned so much more using freebsd than I ever did with linux. It's more consistant, better documented and the ports system is incredible. It also runs virtually anything that linux can run (and sometimes faster). But if you really want to try linux, you have a few options.

Slackware: Slack is one of the most freebsd-like linuxes. It doesn't set up a lot of stuff for you, so there's a lot of configuration. But you'll learn a whole lot.

Gentoo: Difficult for the true novice, but you sound like you have a little more experience than that. Gentoo is also very similar to freebsd with their portage system, but it involves a lot of compiling to get the system going.

Ubuntu: If I wanted to pop something in and have it already mostly configured in a reasonable way, I'd try Ubuntu. However, I think a major con of Ubuntu is that because it's already set up so well, you don't have the opportunity to learn much about it. Other folks may have more experience with it and disagree.

 

[IronWolf]

I want to thank everyone so far for the responses. I'm torn between Ubuntu and Debian based on the suggestions here.

If I was building a server I would use Debian between those two in a heart beat. Again I have very little experieince on Ubuntu, so take my comments with the grain of salt. (and remember Ubuntu uses Debian as a building block, there web page delves into that a little more). I have had wonderful success with all of my Debian boxes and though their release cycle is long (though I think there are movements to speed these up a bit) I want long release cycles on server hardware. You want secure, stable software on server boxes.

Also some could depend on how you plan on administering the box. I never install a GUI on server machines. So all my config is done through the conf files for the services I am working on. It may be that Ubuntu has better admin utils for the GUI, but I am not sure. I am one of those types that when friends call with Linux questions, my first comment is "Get me to a command line."

Really though... Try them both and see what you think. Ubuntu has a live linux CD I think which will make it easy to try it on for size.

 

[IronWolf]

Personally, I'd go with FreeBSD. I've learned so much more using freebsd than I ever did with linux. It's more consistant, better documented and the ports system is incredible. It also runs virtually anything that linux can run (and sometimes faster).

Mmmm, I love the ports system in FreeBSD. It really is a great OS...