Which distros to start Linux with | Hacker News Reader

Which distros to start Linux with

engadget.com

11 pointsrohshall21 comments

Honestly, the article seems rather pointless to me. The kind of people who don't know what a bootloader is should probably not be using Arch Linux or Slackware. Not to mention that at least Arch Linux has a far more detailed and better official documentation, so experienced users who like to try out Arch would probably be much happier with that.

To be fair, the author does mention that people who are new are better off trying Ubuntu. And I found that Arch linux is a great distro to try and understand Linux in the process because of its excellent documentation. Currently, the arch linux lacks ncurses-based installer, but when this article was written, it was fairly easy to install arch.

They lost me at LILO. What year is this, again?

Oh, right. It's 2012 and uucp is still an essential part of Linux and BSD.

Doesn't anyone ever take out the trash?

LILO is actually still in considerably wide use in datacenters because Grub, after all those years, still hasn't stabilized (frequent issues with software RAID, GUID misdetection, etc.)

Haven't tried Slackware, but I thought Arch was a great intro! Still remember my first "Wait, it's fully installed now? Where's the UI??". We did have the setup menu at the time.

Haven't gotten around doing Linux From Scratch yet, but I hear it's a good experience, from a dev perspective at least.

LFS is good for learning why package managers are great -- especially if you move to BLFS.

Some Engadget readers are going to be in for a bit of a shock. Arch dropped the menu driven install interface in the latest release. You have to do everything from the command line, including partitioning, creating, and mounting your file systems.

Yes, I hope it is temporary though. They dropped support for menu-driven installation script because of lack of contribution. Hope somebody steps up to the plate.

I would rather keep my hands clean with Ubuntu :)

I would expect to see coverage of one of the RHEL based distributions in an article like this, CentOS say as it is popular on servers.

Some may be aiming at some kind of certification, or may be looking to add Linux admin skills to their CVs.

I agree, CentOS would make a great beginner's Linux. It is stable, standard, and user friendly.

I don't understand the Arch approach to Linux. It's like they fetishize the drudgery of system administration and want to spend more time doing it.

For some people, it is not a 'dudgery of system administration' but an opportunity to get to know Linux closely.

I'd argue that if you install Slackware or Arch you get more applicable hands on experience that you can then use towards running a CentOS instance than if you'd simply install CentOS itself.

It sounds absurd but if I remember correctly the CentOS installation is pretty straightforward. At least with Arch or Slackware you learn a bit about the file system and general system configuration by the time you are done.

I take the point being made, and, yes, CentOS is a 15 minute install on a desktop PC. My limited experience of Arch is that you do certainly need to know more about your hardware and you really do need to read that wonderful wiki of theirs closely.

My suggestion of CentOS was related to my assumption about a possible audience for the rather odd original article. A person with, say, Windows admin experience might be looking at Linux to enhance a CV, and RHEL do offer certification programmes of various types.

who is it written for? people who are to jump into slackware don't need an explanation 'what is linux', and the ones who need it will have no clue what to do after reading this post.

btw http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4378972 from a few hours ago (and originally from a few years ago). a rewritten pointless post about arch and slackware - coincidence?

There is no great mystery behind it. I am the one who posted both these articles. I am thinking of trying out another distro after trying (and loving) arch linux and Slackware seems like a good distro to try.

Ok, but I don't get these tutorials for the sake of writing a tutorial, with no specified target group. It's like I've written "comparing python vs ruby, getting dirty with dynamic languages" and started it with "a computer program is a set of instructions... the source code is written in something called a programming language..."

He is not comparing distros. He is just recommending to newcomers which distros to start with. But yes, I agree that the introduction is too basic first. Maybe, he just want newcomers to know the 'real distros' they should try out after knowing the basics.

Outdated - the newest default arch installation iso doesn't have a graphical installer

Why editorialise the title? It's very misleading this way.

Agreed. This is an extremely misleading title.

1. It bears no relation to the content of the article nor its title, which is only an introductory guide to two specific distributions, Slackware and Arch Linux.

2. It is plain wrong (and outdated) when compared to other Linux distributions specifically created to be strongly breadcrumbed and newbie-friendly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com