When choosing a Linux distribution, there are several things to take into account, but often, newcomers get stuck on details that don’t necessarily matter. I know this for a fact, because I used to be one of them. So how do you sift through the myriad of options out there and pick the one that’s right for you? That’s exactly what I’m going to help you with right now. Keep in mind, I’m not going to tell you which distribution is best, as that is highly subjective; though I will provide you with some suggestions.
Before we begin on our expedition to determine your personal favorite version of Linux, there are a few misconceptions and traps that plague those just starting out.
- Linux is not Windows. As obvious as this may sound, often people give up on Linux because it is different from Windows. Don’t be afraid of something different.
- Despite similarities, Linux is not Mac OS. Mac OS (OS X, at least) is built on FreeBSD. While FreeBSD and Linux are similar, there are differences. Since Mac OS differs from the operating system it was based on, it is even less similar to Linux, though it is far more similar than Windows.
- Don’t get hung up on the GUI being used. There are various desktop GUI’s available, and most distributions of Linux have several desktop flavors available. Almost all can be configured to look and behave like Windows or Mac to some degree or another. If you don’t like the one a distribution comes with automatically, check for other community remasters that do use the desktop of your choice, or even better, just install it from the repository once you have the system installed.
- Not every distribution suits every purpose. It is true that most all versions of Linux can be customized, certain builds are set up by default to fill specific needs. If a base distribution doesn’t fit your needs, while it may be possible to shoe-horn it into place, typically, it is easier to find one that is pre-configured to do what you need it to do.
There are a few questions that you must answer before you pick a distribution. The first of these is related to hardware. Are you building a Linux box out of a junk computer you have laying around the house, or did you go and buy a brand-new beast of a machine with all the latest in memory, speed, and storage options? While it is true that there is probably a distribution out there that will run on whatever you have, you need to take some of these things into consideration. If you are wanting to run the newest versions of KDE or Gnome, or programs such as OpenOffice.org, then you’ll probably need hardware that has a little more muscle behind it. That old 486 in the corner won’t cut it. If, however, you can settle for lighter-weight applications and desktop environment, such as XFCE and AbiWord, then you can probably find something that doesn’t require as much juice to run. If you are going to be running on older hardware, I would strongly suggest a light-weight distribution, such as Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux. Debian can turn into a resource-hog, but with a little forethought and wise application selection, it can make a good light-weight system. It does take a little bit more knowledge to get it to that point, though.
Next is the question of stability. I’m sure the first thing that comes to mind is that you want your system to be rock-solid. Well, that may be, but there is a question of just how rock-solid. This ties greatly into the initial hardware issue, and the older and more stable the packages of a distribution are, the fewer resources they consume. The idea of a distribution being stable doesn’t necessarily have to do with not crashing. Security holes have been patched, bugs have been eliminated, etc. This is great for a server environment, where up-time and functionality are critical. True, things don’t crash as often, but they aren’t being changed that much, either, as most of the kinks have been worked out. On a desktop, though, you might actually want to trade off some of that stability for more cutting edge applications. It’s not that these applications are harmful or pose a threat to your computer, but they haven’t gone through quite the amount of testing that older “stable” software has. If you want all the latest bells and whistles, you’ll definitely need to go with a less stable release. Personally, in this regard, I like Ubuntu or one of its many derivatives (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.) for my desktop units, and Debian stable for my servers.
Finally, there is the release and update cycle to consider. If you are needing a stable environment as defined above, then you probably want a release with a fairly long life-cycle, and minimal updates (namely just security patches and bug fixes). If, however, you have decided to go with something a little more cutting edge, then you need a distribution with plenty of updates and frequent releases. This will ensure that you are staying up-to-date where it matters. It is for this reason that certain distributions have fallen out of favor with me. Either they claim to be a stable release, yet have major version changes in the repositories and frequent releases (such as Ubuntu LTS); or it will claim to be more on the testing side of things and releases and updates will fall by the wayside, as was the case with a distribution I used to favor, which shall remain nameless.
In the end, after weighing all these factors, if you still can’t make up your mind, download a few different versions and play around with them. Also, be sure to ask others about their experience with various distributions. You might avoid some aggravation if you find out from a peer that the distribution you are looking at doesn’t fit your needs.