On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:11:40PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <20090508110915.ga2...@nagi>, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes >> >> New users: ubuntu, because it's shiny. >> > And Ubuntu is a debian derivative, so they're just one choice anyway :-)
Not really. Ubuntu is debian, minus a working package system[1], minus a decent initial install[2], plus hordes of newbies[3]. [1] I consider the "package system" to be the package manager software -- which I admit is (virtually) identical in Debian and Ubuntu -- plus the community of package maintainers. Debian's package maintainers are miles ahead of ubuntu's, redhat's, freebsd's, etc. [2] If your initial install includes X11 or any graphical user interface, then it's indecent. ;) [3] You gain no points for guessing how much I enjoy this "feature". :) > Well, I'd say gentoo (or similar) was the only sane choice for > developers :-) But it wouldn't be a sane choice for you, if you're > thinking of leaving Windows. It's NOT a good "first distro" choice. > > As a first distro, I'd agree with Ubuntu or Kubuntu (try and have a play > on someone's system with both Gnome and KDE - see which one suits you > best). Absolutely. All kidding aside, Ubuntu is the ideal choice for "getting one's toes wet". > And if you want a "learn the hard way" distro (which I *would* > *strongly* recommend, but you really want a bit more experience than > just Windows), then try Slackware. Oh - and the thing about Slackware - > it has the reputation of booting and installing on pretty much ANYTHING. Err, really? I've never heard this reputation. NetBSD is the portable OS. That's not to say that slackware is a bad learning experience, although I'd personally lump Gentoo in there as well... but really, neither holds a candle to "linux from scratch"... but slackware isn't particularly portable. I mean, it only runs on what, 4-5 different chip architectures? NetBSD does 32, ranging from acorn32 to cats to playstation2 to zaurus. :P > A lot of liveCDs and distros have trouble booting on some hardware - > they'll recognise anything modern, but often will choke on something a > bit older. I could never get liveCDs to work on my system. Oh, add "liveCDs" to my list of indecency in operating systems. ;) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
