Aqua-Soft ForumsOk, let me say it like this. I have tried Linux before, but it have never been so very well.. It have allways been som problems, and i had to format the disk. This time i have tried Gentoo Linux, but i dont think that i am ready for it. I got one in my family to install it for me, and set up X and so on, but there still are some errors, and i havent got a clue on how to fix it. So what i am looking for is a new distro, not so very hard to use, set up and configure. I have tried Red Hat and Mandrake, and like them both, but they are so _very_ easy to install. And i dont actually have to do anything, install any apps or anything, becasue everything comes with the distro. So to you Linux gurus out there; are there any other distros that i should try? It would be realy nice 
[help]what Distro Should I Install?
well if you have tried linux before.. but are still sorta ****ie.. i personaly... do sugest mandrake. your gunna hear people say BOO mandrake sucks its bloated and all this crap but i actually use it on a machine and i like it alot!.. its easy to set up.. very user friendly and they have there custome controlpanels in there.. i think you will likei t alot.. then once you learn more get used to that and dont want to have mandrake.. you can move on to a more experience wise distro
-bolero
Ya. BOO mandrake. Mandrake is made for a windows kiddie who doesn't want to learn linux, doesn't want to configure anything on their own. And doesn't want to learn.
I'd go with redhat. It's just as easy to setup, just as easy to configure. But at the same time, still comes with the commandline tools to learn yourself. Plus RH isn't riddled with gaping holes and security flaws like mandrake is.
Just my personal favorite. If you actually want to LEARN linux, i'd go with slackware. It's my old school favorite.
As where if you want stuff setup easy enough, and still learn, and want GREAT speed. Go with gentoo. It compiles everything from source when you install. And it uses all the optimizations for your processor, etc. So everything is compiled to run as good as possible on your specific system, instead of the other distro's who just compiled everything for 586.
So.. heh
Best Speeds = Gentoo
Learn the Most = Slackware
Secure & Easy = RedHat
Super Easy and bleh = Mandrake
Just my 2 cents.
Oh yukk, redhat is really crappy. Ive had nothing but trouble with it.
I personaly suggest Mandrake for ****s.
Its VERY much linux, and a good version at that. While it does have nice GUIs, all the text configs are still in tact.
URPMI is great too.
So, Goooo Mandrake.
If you want something harder, you COULD try Slackware or my fav, Arch linux, but id stick with Mandrake for a while.
yeah see what i mean.. people go BOO MANDRAKE
like come on these are ****ies... i started off with mandrake too and mandrake helped me out SO greatly.. its linux still.. and it works just like any other ones
iv tried redhat and do not like it at all.. i gotta do alot of fixing and stuff to get it to run fast..... use mandrake as a ****ie.... go with it for a while then go on to another distro like slackware or some other deal...
ugh.. mandrake is good its linux there all linux im very impressed with mandrake
and mandrake still has all command line tools i dunno what your talking about?
and for security holes? again i dunno what your talking about mandrake isnt bad for security holes but obviously if you want to use it on a server your gunna have to do alot more patches and configuring.. even for reedhat.. not everything is perfect...
-bolero
Ok i think i wil go for Mandrake, because i did like it bether than Red Hat. And maybe use Ximian or Fluxbox as window manager, cause i dont like KDE or Gnome at all, they are just to easy. So thanks for the replies ppl
Id wait for Mandrake 9.2, it should be final in a couple weeks.
I would wait for 9.2 since there is an isue with 9.1 and some mouse brands
The mouse will froze after KDE or gnome loads , there is fix for it but that takes to
use to tweak with it and for a **** like me is not to easy.
So I formated the Hd and I am waiting for 9.2 wich promises to have that bug fix.
also after burning your ISO check it I had some corrupted data on the installer CD1. and I kept getting a warning popup about a package not being installed.
Why do you want to install Linux? Will it be your primary OS?
If I were you, I'd try out RedHat Linux 9. I think it can be installed on Windows partitions, which means you wouldn't have to go through reformatting. Also, there's Pygmy Linux, but it's unsupported now. I'm sure a few others will install and run on a Windows partition.
If you want to wipe your hard drive, though, I'd try Lycoris Linux. I hear it's pretty good for ****ies, and there a few good tutorials on getting stuff set up on it at lycoris.org.
When I'm going through one of my Linux episodes, I either use Mandrake 9.1 or Redhat 8 (I don't have the third CD for RH9. Forgot to burn it. >.< ). They're both really good, and come with many great programs. Just be sure that the distro you choose supports your hardware.
No, Redhat can't install onto a Windows partition. No distro can install onto NTFS.
I'd say go for Mandrake or RedHat.
Mandrake is usually great for Linux ****s, especially those who are accustomed to the Windows style of using the OS.
Contra, I was talking about a FAT32 partition. I'm sure I saw the option in the partition editor to install a loopback file so that Linux could boot on it. Oh well.
I think slackware has like... an option to do a umsdos install which is like installing it onto a windows partition (fat32 only though) and some others like Peanut Linux have this feature as well
-bolero
why is it that linux can't go near NTFS drives?
I've just had a play with SuSE 8.2 demo that runs from ram and CD drive. I couldn't save my prefs because all my drives are NTFS.
Having never used linux before I think that this CD-boot only version gave a nice intro to it.
Well, it can read NTFS, but not write.
Why? Blame Microsoft of course. 
Microsoft added lots of "security" features that basically hid the way NTFS worked, and since we dont know how it works, we cant reverse engineer it.
In comparision, FAT32 used a very simple and open method for righting, so the community was able to figure that out easily.
Contra,
I was (semi) reliably informed by a windows admin that the NTFS specification is public and MS has done nothing that would make Linux accessing it difficult.
If you've got an article which goes with what you say i'd love to read it
fissy
A WINDOWS admin told you. 
Did he also tell you Linux sucked because it doesnt have a GUI? (Win Admins have told me that).
Ill find some info for you though.
Here's something from the Linux-NTFS website:
NTFS is built like a database. Any changes you make, necessitate making changes in many places, for consistancy. Make a mistake and the filesystem will be damaged, make too many mistakes and the filesystem will be destroyed.
Now, MS might not have purposely over complicated things (no one really knows), but the file system obviously isnt built great.
For comparision, ext3 and ReiserFS aren't like that at all, and they have MORE features than NTFS .
>Did he also tell you Linux sucked because it doesnt have a GUI? (Win Admins have told me that).
LOL
thanks for the info
Originally posted by contrasutra@Sep 6 2003, 05:42 PMIn comparision, FAT32 used a very simple and open method for righting, so the community was able to figure that out easily.
So I made a typo, im not perfct.
i've heard a lot of good things about gentoo.
never tried it b/4 though. one thing that gets me is the way linux pros
are condescending to ****s, "if you don't want to learn..." blah blah blah.
dude, go with the easiest to install with an easily accessible library of programs and
drivers. which might mean "buggy" redhat or "don't want to learn" gentoo.
goodluck.
I just had to check Mandrake out. It was a couple years ago last time I tried to "get into "Linux, and the install was pretty easy. Some of you will probably die when I tell you where I'm running it... wait for it... yes, I'm running it in XP!
Took me 30 minutes to get it up and running, even got internet working. Everything's just dandy, tried KDE and Gnome, and now what? Is there anything useful to do with it that XP cannot do, or is it something else?!?