Linux

Ive been hearing alot of good about linux here on Sup Forums and wanting to make the switch. What are some good builds for home/school use?

Ubuntu Mate

Ubuntu probably has the most beginner-friendly resources out there, Fedora isn't a terrible choice. Basically anything with a graphical installer should be fine, just stick with Debian or RHEL-based distributions and you'll have a good time.

No. Arch is the best for beginners. It has the best documentation, so OP won't be back every minute with a stupid question. He'll learn the most about GNU+Linux from Arch, too.

>this thread

Thanks, I was going to /r/ that.

>He'll learn the most about GNU+Linux from Arch, too.
If you want to learn about Linux install Source Mage, not some beginner/grandma distro like Arch

Arch isn't at all like that, retards.
This thread is for beginner distros, you fucking retard. Stupid fucking faggot go die.

LFS or GTFO

>Stupid fucking faggot go die.
Angry because your last update broke that piece of shit that is Arch agian?

I use Debian, you fucking retard.

Most popular distros in the World
1. Ubuntu (debian,mint, ubuntu flavors)
2. CentOS (RedHat,fedora)
3. Gentoo
4. Arch
5. OpenSuse

>I use Debian, you fucking retard.
Angry because you cant use any package from 1996 or later by default?

Arch is the worst distro to pick for a beginner, since it explicitly makes little to no modifications to packages, leaving fixing its broken shit to the user. There's a reason why 80% of every Arch wiki page is dedicated to workarounds for broken shit.

Cant figure out how to multi reply from shitty app but thanks to those who replied, will check them out

What are you on about?
Nice meme.
Beginners need to learn that stuff somehow.

In my exprience ubuntu with MATE or XFCE is the best compromise between looks, speed and ease of use.
I personally use Lubuntu as it is the fastest one but some configs require editing text files.
Base Ubuntu with gnome is bloat. Same for Mint.
No matter what version you get, you can always simply install another desktop environment. These flavors only differ in the set of Desktop applications installed by default. The core is the same.

>Beginners need to learn that stuff somehow.
You need to give them something with GUIs that just werks at the beginning before dropping them into deep water.

implying this highschooler is going to do anything other than paste whatever he reads on stackoverflow into the terminal until it works

Fuck. Is Sup Forums really that predictable?

>implying that isn't what everyone else does anyway

Stop treating people like babies. I blame the pussification of society on people like you. You're too feminine.

All that does is make the beginner think that Linux is a high-maintenance pile of garbage. It's much better to start with a distro that makes an actual effort to make things work.

No, it teaches them the importance of system management and maintenance. It is a necessary step that should be taken as early as possible.

OP, don't listen to these fags arguing. Just install gentoo.

>Fixing shit by hand that should've been fixed once at the source instead of a thousand times by users makes me more manly
Arch niggers, everyone.

When did I say it was ''manly'' you fucking retard? I said that you trying to be motherly is a feminine trait. That doesn't mean making people do things for themselves is masculine. It just makes people more masculine.

Except that the step is not necessary, or made much less widespread, if you start with a distro that actually works. We shouldn't teach users to be satisfied with workarounds for everything, and we shouldn't teach developers that it's okay for users to pick up the pieces.

It is necessary. Devs can't test their packages against the innumerable possible setups they will encounter. Users have to see what happens and report it, especially if they want new packages.

And you consider throwing up an entry with a workaround in the wiki and not investigating and patching the issue a good practice? Other distros do that, that's why they work and Arch doesn't.

>and not investigating and patching the issue a good practice?
Some things can be patches some can't. Arch doesn't do this, the devs have to. Stop acting like package managers are operating systems.

If some things can be patched, why aren't they? "Innumerable setups" is not a good excuse, Gentoo patches its packages and it has to deal with even more configurations.

I think you'll find that you're not going to have problems with Pacman. It's the AUR that you're thinking of.

Most packages described on Arch wiki are in Pacman, and they still usually have 5+ "it's broken, here's a workaround" sections.

Yes, packages from the AUR can conflict with packages from pacman.

Most breakages are not AUR's fault, unless you assume that almost all arch users use AUR - and if they do, then it means that Arch itself doesn't offer enough packages, which is another reason to not use it.

There are dozens of packages managers. You don't use an OS for the package manager, anyway. Most people use the AUR because it has the latest software, just like people using Debian Unstable.

kids will continue to brag about being able to install arch until the end of time

It takes 10 minutes to do. No one brags about it.

I know, I have installed it myself
and is very clearly bragging about it, since no sane person would ever recommend Arch to a beginner

Then why did you bring up AUR in the first place? Point still stands, Arch leaves it to users to fix their broken packages, even if you only use official sources because their philosophy is to make things easier for them, not for users. This makes it horrible for a beginner because it makes them think that Linux takes way more maintenance that a sane distro actually takes.

You're doing the lord's work

>shitty app
op, just use the fucking browser god damn man.

Nobody SHOULD brag about it.

Every linux user should know how to find and compile the version of a specific program, even though the distro pushes a version that generally makes it easier.
I 100% pick distro because of the software.
The update policies, the availability of packages etc.
With arch, you have a very small set of packages in the repository and therefore they have the AUR so you can install other stuff.
If you use arch, you use it because you want these things. So yes, the package manager is part of the most important part of why people pick a distro.

Why is Arch not good for beginners?
Debian doesn't force its users to use unstable, Arch doesn't force users to use unofficial repositories. What is your issue?

MINT, mate or elementary OS

Not just the AUR but many more package managers.

I'm talking about shit that's broken in OFFICIAL repositories, with OFFICIAL packages that have OFFICIAL wiki pages with OFFICIAL workarounds. Do you have issues with reading comprehension or are you so deluded with respect to your distro?

>I'm talking about shit that's broken in OFFICIAL repositories
Such as?

this
/thread

The AUR is not a package manager, it is an Arch User Repository.
Obviously you can use another user repository, but at some point, you are not using arch.
Good examples are parabola and chakra.
It is arch with another repository, completely different distro.

Grep "troubleshooting" on the Arch wiki and see for yourself.

>The AUR is not a package manager
Maybe you should reread my post, big guy.
>it is an Arch User Repository.
Good job. You figured it out.
>Obviously you can use another user repository, but at some point, you are not using arch.
Why? The operating system doesn't change based on the package manager.
>Good examples are parabola and chakra.
You mean forks or Arch?

Arch (and gentoo, and slackware) users perfectly summed up.

>and gentoo
Lies, Gentoo users know their distro is not a good idea for beginners.

For an actual beginner, forgive the meme, I would recommend a distro like Solus or Ubuntu. They're very GUI-rich, while allowing you to drop to terminal as wanted so new users can dip their toes into the world of CLI.

>That doesn't mean making people do things for themselves is masculine.
>It just makes people more masculine.
Do you need some coffee or what? So doing things for yourself isn't masculine, but doing things for yourself makes you more masculine?

>Most popular distros in the World
>1. Ubuntu (debian,mint, ubuntu flavors)
>Ubuntu (debian
What did he mean by this?

The act itself is not masculine, no.

If you think anything computer-related is masculine to normals, you're wrong. Adjusted people who don't frequent imageboards don't think you're a macho man because you can bugfix

The act isn't necessarily computer related.

>feminine
>masculine
>in the context of fucking computers and OS's

Are you literally mentally ill? What has to go wrong in a person's life to think like this?

I'm saying that doing things for yourself is masculine.

Oh. If you're talking about being able to fix/understand things in general, that's different. I agree newer generations are far too used to things being handed to them and should learn how the things they use everyday actually work. But that's not really masculine, it applies to women as well.

Women can do masculine things and have masculine traits.

> doing things for yourself is masculine.
I disagree. There's nothing inherently masculine about learning, nor is it feminine.

I'm not sure you know what masculine and feminine mean.

>masculine
>pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men
>feminine
>pertaining to or characteristic of a woman or girl
No, I think I'm good. Learning is not a characteristic unique to women or men, they both do it constantly.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

I mean from a psychology perspective.

When I first got into linux I believe I started with Debian, so I guess Ubuntu/derivatives would be a good starting point.

...

I fucking hate this retarded penguin.

For a newbie, it's probably important to get a distro that ships with a desktop you like, because changing desktops isn't always easy if you don't know what yu're doing. So if you want something that apes a Windows interface, look at cinnamon, which is Mint's flagship. If you want something customizable in any way you want, look for KDE which is pretty much everywhere. If you want to revive a toaster or just prefer a traditional but lightning fast interface, Xfce or MATE. If you want a polished, contemporary desktop experience, look no further than Gnohohohoho, ok I can't finish that sentence.

Kek

Linux is pretty cool. It came with my Android.

These arch/gentoo fags need to die out.

came with your phone, you mean. Android is the Linux that came with your phone.

I dont get linux simple shit like
printf "-b test" printf will see -b as a flag. and not print it. how would you fix this?

You don't own Android, it is owned by Google. Linux is one component, the kernel, in a fully functioning Android system.
There is Linux in Android, but Android is not Linux.

It was my understanding Android is just a custom Linux Kernel, without the GNU OS. So Android "isn't Linux" in the same way the Linux-libre or Gentoo's Hardened kernel isn't Linux: they're forks of Linux, but still keep its namesake.
Of course, Android isn't GNU/Linux (or less autistically, Desktop Linux), but that's not what I was saying.

As far as I know there are no GNU components in Android.

Everything, that uses Linux is Linux, thus Android is Linux, and GNU is Linux. And RMS is reatard.

If Arch wasn't your first and only distro, you're not even a real Linux user.

First of all, Linux us a kernel. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux.
Second, do this:
printf -- '-b test'

Android is linux, and Android uses no GNU bullshit, so go I call it Linux and I think. Linus created Linux, not you, Richard. And he has exclusive right to name it Linux.

How is using the correct names of things autistic?

If I was a microsoft shill I would pay Arch users for all their hard work making switching to linux a dreadful experience for people

Richard Stallman created the thing people call 'Linux'. Linus Torvalds created the thing people call 'Linux kernel'. Therefore Richard Stallman is the creator of Linux - and he called it GNU.

Trisquel Sugar is perfect for both home use and educational purposes.

Linux can work without GNU, Linus was just too lazy to do it himself.

>>
For the best 'out of the box' experience, get linux mint. It's the best distro for people who need to get shit done, and do not want to spend 12 hours installing and configuring shit.

Linus called his kernel freax but people just called it linux
RMS called his freax-based OS GNU but people still just call it linux

Try openSUSE, also Arch is a pretty good wiki

GNU can work without Linux, Hurd contributiors are just too lazy

linux is just a kernel and you cant do anything with it alone

OS is a part between hardware and programs, so it is OS. GNU is just bunch of programs. Like Windows explorer is program

> Linus called his kernel freax but people just called it linux
> RMS called his freax-based OS GNU but people still just call it linux
GNU is not Linux based. It was created 10 years before Linux and supports multiple kernels such as kFreeBSD, Linux, Hurd, and others.

Kubuntu

>How is using the correct names of things autistic?
t.autist