Hi, I have goggled and really distracted. I know nothing about linux. I would love to learn it in my own. I like books, and videos, but books give more details. Many debates about which distribution to use. I just want to have a solid foundation and learn basics the right way, if there is any. I do not know what i do not know. Thanks
Personal experience: The best way is to install a Debian based distro like Ubuntu with Gnome desktop Installing apps can be mostly done by Ubuntu Software Then try to do stuff that you are used to in windows, and if there is a problem you can easily search for solutions online The last part is why Ubuntu is preferred for me because it was the easiest distro to find answers on
There is no such thing as learning Linux, just like there is no such thing as learning windows. Say in windows I consider myself a well above average sysadmin/technician (I have a number of world's first discoveries, achievements, and so on) but I'm not a programmer, and I barely know where to start using excel. So I learned Windows or not? In Linux is the same. It depends on what you're interested to. You want just use it as a windows replacement to do basic tasks? (there is little to learn there, it's like using windows) --->use Ubuntu or other distros made for the herd. You want to learn coding/bash scripting or alike? ---> anything works (also WSL inside windows is more than enough for that) You want to seriously understand how it works inside, how directory are organized, how to compile a program, how to deal with services, init systems (and the systemd cancer), start using a medium difficult distro like Arch (just installing it w/o any graphical tool will give you more skill than 2 years of Ubuntu usage), or a even harder one like Slackware.
Be sure most Linux Distros now a days have complete M$ telem hardly integrated via vs code. you need to remove the vs code by yourself to get rid of M$ telem from linux distro plus its repo upgrades.
I will second this right here! Don't get me wrong, I have gotten a thing or two to work in WINE, but more often that not, it is a massive, convoluted, random, PITA, usually for nothing. Even if it does work, any update is likely to bork it again. After a few attempts at learning WINE, I just removed it completely from my consciousness. Much as I do not care for Ubuntu, it is the easiest to get help on and most "supported" by developers. I prefer a *buntu over Ubuntu itself though just because I hate the default desktop it uses. I like Xfce, so for me it's Xubuntu, MX Linux, or Manjaro with Xfce. Later when you have a feel for things, maybe even straight Debian without the *buntu spin. Though when starting with that, you'll find a LOT of things you did not know existed will just be missing by default, like networking stuff "gvfs-backends" (Samba? Bluetooth?), Time sync stuff? Package manager? Sudo for crying out loud, and your user in the sudo group to even use it. It's been a while so I forgot, but several things with random sounding names that are essential for basic operation are missing out of the box...but once you sort that out, it's nice having a system that was not forked and bloated up, that you know exactly what/where everything is. Edit: Just installed Debian 12 and it is greatly improved without all the missing stuff! Feels much more complete out of the box than Debian 11 did. I'd go straight for that (MX (debian/no systemd based) or Manjaro (arch based)) and skip anything based on *buntu at this point.
I grudgingly agree, Wine is there if you have too but try to avoid. The first problem is installing Wine, before you even get to installing and running the Windows program you wish to use, its a headache I just don't need. Ill take a look at Trinity, thanks for the tip
My 2 cents. First of all there is of course a learning effect for each OS. (As it is for each application). And there are general differences of what we call today's Windows and Linux. Windows ist based on WindowsNT (which was MSFT's own attempt of making a 32 bit OS after the broken alliance with IBM's superior OS/2), Linux is based on UNIX (AT&T / Bell). So their systems have different structures. Also the basic organisation is different. (As you can easily notice on the system partitions). At Linux based OS you still hear about kernel and RAM disk. I would suggest to dual boot either way I would go for a Debian based distro first. Most start with Mint. Once you have chosen a distro dual boot it with windows. Whenever you like boot to Linux and try it out. Live with that a while. Most people do underestimate that 'we' are very used and comfortable with Windows! Finally we are using it for decades / years. So if there is a special work / task to do we always tend to do it the common way even though we have an alternative! You will notice that most of your tasks can be done either on Windows or on Linux. Try it to realize on Linux. This period of time, becoming familiar with the chosen Linux distro / getting more away from windows takes time!!! Within that period of time I actually recommend not to change the Linux distro! It's not about a probable 'better' distro. It's because you are still very used to windows! This is a 'critical' point. You never get happy with Linux when you are still very tied to Windows. One might think the reason is a false distro and then they start distro hopping. But usually that won't work. People stay unhappy with either distro since windows is 'still much better'. There will be a time when you notice that you are actually booting Linux more than windows! You only go to windows IF there is no way on Linux to realize it. From there you can change the distro. Maybe to *ubuntu. Or even go away from Debian based distros. Depends on how much you want to get involved. This describes 'the way to Linux' of most people I know. My way included. Dual boot and staying at one particular distro. Take your time....if you notice after a year you still boot to windows and always no time to Linux...then Linux is nothing for you..(yet).
I have been using Linux since about 1994. I consider myself to be an above average user, but certainly not an expert. I agree with most of the above comments. I have tried many distros over the years and still tinker with others from time to time, but my daily driver is Mint. While it is very new user friendly, it is not just for beginners. On thing I really like about Mint that it is very stable and each new version just add polish. The reason that I do not recommend Ubuntu is they keep trying radical new things and then dump them when they fail (particularly the Unity desktop, which was anything but).
Me2. Above average, not an expert. I started in the 90s with IRIX on a SGI O2 workstation. (The x86 CPU platform never was fast enough to perform scientific tasks which required data processing for NMR spectroscopy). It had a RISC (MIPS) processor, IRIX was based on UNIX. So I got basic command line UNIX knowledge early on (IRIX had a GUI as well), but it took a long time until I started privately to 'return' to a UNIX based OS. I firstly ran a media server (MIPS based) before I tried 'Linux' as workstation. It was Mint., then I went to Kubuntu because of the KDE desktop. (Mint had a KDE version as well, but they gave it up). Regarding profession, the new NMR device is now controlled by CentOS (app running there), the O2 MIPS station has become a simple x64 station. I had the chance to use very different OSes due to my age lol and my job. I actually tried to avoid the x86 architecture a long time, because MIPS and 68XXX was superior. I also used OS/2 Warp next to winNT. The DOS related 'windows' never convinced up to winME. The alliance of Canonical with snap, and the decision to ditch flatpak for instance. And also their idea to introduce telemetry. Maybe I have to change the distro because of future ideas of Canonical. ATM the snap version of firefox for instance fails to get updated, so you have to run snap refresh manually.
hm. i started with mint 1.7.3 rosa; it installed out of the box, without a single glitch on my vintage lenovo 3000 200 lappy.very impessive! but. NOT on my i5 desktop.[ it has got a wifidongle that refuse to replace.] so back to w7.. long linux pause.worse; every single linux distro that i live-booted from managed to f ck up my wifi connection.. not encouraging...until my w7 crashed.[ my own fault; i cleaned the registry one time too much..] so; having developed an allergy for anything newer than 7, i had no choice but to try linux once more.turns out mint 2.1 works with my dongle.installed it. not without glitches. but it works. for now. first impression; full of bloatware.office, firefux, etc etc. and way too many files from canonical landing on my hdd. [ i happen to have an allergy for canonical too, lol.] i just want my pc to have a decent browser with javascript toggled to disabled, a wordprocessor. and a filemanager, plus something ike cardfile, vlc, and no telemetry. yes; got long long way to go still. i still got that lappy, 1.7.3 is obsolete by now, but i seem to be stuck with it. so; work in progress..to be continued.. [ maybe.]
Just use Tde, it's available for any Ubuntu and Debian flavor, and even on unsupported distros like Void or Arch is deadly simple to make it working.