Question on linux

warlordtifa

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
32
0
10,530
so i have been wanting to learn linux (really im just bored and want something new) my question is what one to go with i see there are a few out there. was thinking about backtrack but it seems like its no longer available and it seems kail is the new one to go with ? am i wrong on this or is google just pointing me in the wrong way ? also is kail good to go with or should i be looking at something else? thanks for any info or links to info that i can read up on as well...
 
Solution
Kali and Backtrack are not suitable for beginners. They are specialized distributions intended for a particular purpose, not general use.

Try Mint, Fedora or OpenSuSE.
If you are just dipping your toe in the water you may wish to start by running Linux from a live CD (should be available for all the above). Apart from anything else that gives you a chance to confirm that your hardware is supported, but be aware that performance will suffer when running from a DVD.

Other than a native install you may also wish to try running in a VM, such as VirtualBox. This avoids all questions of repartitioning hard disks and Linux runs very well in a virtual machine. It's a very good way of trying out Linux, and makes it easy to look at a few different distributions. In the end a native install will give you the best performance but you will be much more prepared to do this if you have already become familiar with Linux.
 


I'd recommend a popular distribution running from a live USB stick or DVD, such as Ubuntu or Kubuntu. You boot from the DVD or USB stick and the OS runs, so you can play with it without messing with whatever underlying Windows installation you have on your hard drive. The big-name distributions are pretty polished and very likely to Just Work the way they're supposed to, which is ideal for somebody who is new to the OS. I started out with putting Debian Potato on a laptop about a dozen years ago. This was back when Debian used boot floppies, multiple CD-ROMs, and dselect to do the installation. You had to manually configure XF86config and type in startx to get the window manager to start. That was NOT a good choice for a neophyte for a lot of reasons, particularly one with only dial-up internet (and a winmodem too!) and one computer. There were a lot of things I didn't know and couldn't just go look up so I got stuck a LOT. I would have been thrilled if live CDs were around in those days! I did eventually manage to learn the innards of the OS but I knew a few folks at the college who were old UNIX guys who helped to get me unstuck.

Performance from a live CD/DVD/USB stick is actually very good as long as you have enough RAM in your system. ("Plenty" generally means 4 GB or more today.) The contents of the CD/DVD/USB stick today usually get cached in RAM and things load very snappily since RAM is much faster than any other kind of storage in your computer. That didn't used to be the case as you'd click on something and get a lag as the CD drive spun up, seeked, and then your menu/program started. Also most systems didn't have a lot of RAM. You'd run a 600-something MB live CD on a machine with 256 or 512 MB of RAM so there wasn't enough to even cache the whole CD, let alone do so and be able to have any RAM left over for anything else.
 

warlordtifa

Honorable
Oct 28, 2013
32
0
10,530
i have a extra ssd laying around with no need of it so i was going to use that.. i was told about the live cd and have been looking in to that as well. this past weekend was a no go for me as things came up but this weekend will be the weekend i i dive head first in to it so im sure i will have question if google is not good to me :)