Enlighten me
Debian, RHEL, Arch, Gentoo,
>>54372881
Bottom up approach: Gentoo, Arch, LFS
Top down approach: CentOS
Any approach: Debian
Ordered by internal complexity, descending:
Debian/Ubuntu > Gentoo > Arch
Disregard what NEETs tell you. Arch is simple. It's good to learn the ropes. Sooner or later you will likely upgrade to a more mature distribution tho.
Ubunutu or a derivative.
It's newb but, you need to get used to being away from Windows full time. Then move on to Debian when your feel too contained by whatever *buntu you decide on.
Just get focused on using the terminal over time, and get comfortable with /etc/ and changing configuration files.
Pro tip: Arch is significantly simpler than Ubuntu.
Just like Apple managed to convince the masses that their devices are somehow magical, Arch convinced the masses that their distribution is difficult in any way, LOL. And it works. The users of this simple distribution actually feel superior.
>>54372956
>feel too contained
What can Debian do that Ubuntu can't?
>>54372950
I agree with most of this but, never advise someone to start with Arch unless they are an autistic NEET with too much time on their hands.
People must FIRST get used to an environment that isn't Windows. I'm not saying that Arch is complicated but, mindlessly following instructions that mean nothing to you won't TEACH you anything. Hence why there is so much anger and angst on the Arch forums, it's full of babbies trying to be cool and installing the distro without knowing how to build it up once the see the blinking cursor you're left with once it's done
>>54372984
nothing. Ubunutu focuses on being newbie friendly, Debian doesn't. That's the point though.
>>54373005
Anything you can learn on Debian, you can learn on Ubuntu.
>>54372881
Debian testing.
>>54372991
Those are script kiddies... A lot of people on /g/ are script kiddies, that's why they can't install Gentoo, because they don't bother to learn how Portage works.
>>54373269
I've used Gentoo for 4 years, Arch for 2 years.
Ubuntu and Debian are superior to both.
Ubuntu or Mint will be a usable if you're a GUI-level newbie.
If you have any CLI experience, and want to plunge into learning CLI, you'll learn a lot faster from just installing arch.
>>54373322
>you'll learn a lot faster from just installing arch.
There's nothing you can learn with Arch that you can't learn with Ubuntu.
any distribution has terminal. go there and start
>>54373322
>you'll learn a lot faster from just installing arch.
>learn by copying the ArchWiki word for word
>>54372881
If you want to learn how linux works: Slackware
>>54372977
No.
I do realize that Arch might be a little simpler once installed but for Chrissakes, the installation is an utter nightmare.
And most windoes don't know how to do shit like roll back and edit or make directories so they flounder about on the dreadfully nonspecific Arch wiki until they get fed up and either go rage on the forums or install an OS that doesn't force you to do everything yourself like Debian or Ubuntu.
>>54372881
any noob distro + tlcl then go arch
>>54372881
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.
You don't "learn Linux" you massive tool
You use it, and in the process you start to pick up what you need
>>54373396
>"faster"
>reading comprehension
>>54375793
This guy has a point. Also, if you don't seem to learn anything when using a noob friendly distro, it just means that they are so polished that they never get in your way and are fully ready for common consumers. If this is true, there's not really any point using a distro that is not noob friendly, as the work has already been done for you. Unless of course you want to learn everything about it as a hobby instead of just using your system.
Yes but why learn how to use it in the first place? Really.
Slackware. You compile everything and you learn what the package managers are doing behind the scenes. Compile a kernel.
Once you're comfortable with all that move to Debian.
It would also be useful if you could have a headless box to play around with. Set up services like webserver, mail server, ircd, sshd. Create fake users, jail them. Offer your friends logins on that box, play sys admin. Give yourself a regular user login, try and gain root access.
