I advice to try recent version of Knopppix. LiveDVD version has as many applications as Slackware installation distributions (and perhaps even more) and it allows hard drive installation. Knoppix is Debian based distro - as Ubuntu and many others. There is only a small installation non-typical requirements - Knoppix needs at least 8 GB ReiserFS filesystem partition. Knoppix to me gives a feeling of a "fresh air".

I know it's hard suggesting things to me. I have always had this little problem where I find it extremely hard to decide. It's been like that since I was little and it happened today. I spent 5 minutes deciding between a can of coke and a can of pepsi today at the grocery store.

The problem is: I cannot decide. Why? I dunno. I am not a noob when it comes to Linux, I think, but I am certain I'm no intermediate.

try mepis. similar stability to debian. configurations like Ubuntu, and updates from the selected community repos will get you some updates not normally available to debian dtable. in my opinion one of the best community's. it is a kde distro though. once installed you can install other desktop environments if you desire.

Personally, in the OPs case, I'd (and I hate myself saying it) suggest that you stick with Windows. It seems to me that you don't want to go the extra mile to learn something new, you are looking for Windows for free. It's not likely to happen any time soon.

To change an OS from something familiar to something unfamiliar is going to involve a learning curve that you don't seem to want to take (the same would be true if you had only ever used Linux and were considering Windows as an alternative). I feel you are happy in your comfort zone, and so there's no reason for you to leave it.

Ok, I've spent some days thinking what I really want with Linux, what my "goal" is. Much like with my Galaxy Nexus, I want the latest firmware and features first, before everyone else. Not necessarily unstable/experimental/testing. Somewhat stable, would be good.

I've come to the conclusion that I don't want something rock solid stable because that usually means no updates in a long time. I don't want nightlies. Weeklies at the earliest.

So pretty much Fedora 17 then?

I've been in using Ubuntu and Linux Mint for a good long while now, dabbled in some others, Crunchbang most frequently. Never really liked KDE... until I've started trying Chakra Linux. It caught me somehow.

The speed of the KDE implementation, even on my netbook, the middle-ground feeling... meaning a smidge more advanced than Ubuntu or Linux Mint. The distro is "semi-rolling" release where the core is updated like twice a year, but apps and such are updated as the push from upstream.

So yeah, I'm recommended a completely KDE Arch-based distro to someone who said no to KDE and Arch. Well, I used to say that too while trying out Kubuntu, Linux Mint KDE, Mepis, Arch etc... until I tried Chakra something clicked for me.

It is worth a peek.

With newer software, inevitably comes more bugs and breakage. You have already mentioned that you don't like spending time on configuration and learning...?

That's up to you.

It's still not clear to me, why you would want to use GNU/Linux over windows and what it is you hope to achieve by doing so? If you want to play about with the latest stuff, then 'buntu or mint is where you should be headed. Fedora is an option, but it's not 'buntu or mint in terms of "user friendly(tm)". You may find yourself in the midst of more 5 hours stints configuring stuff...

You might want to install a few distros in a VM and see how you like them before committing to anything - but bear in mind that this has no bearing whatsoever on actual hardware support or how the distro will behave on your system - i.e. installation may be a breeze in a vm, but on your hardware there may be unforeseen problems.

I know possible bugs and breakage comes with it, but I'm ready for it. I know I said I didn't wanna spend countless of hours on configuration (I meant useless configuration, that will do me no good), but where did I specifically said I didn't want to learn? That must have been a typo or misconception?

Yeah, I know.

I'm tired of Windows. For instance, I am the adminstrator of my laptop, yet it very often says I need permissions to do so, and dabbling with adding users to groups doesn't help it. That is one of many flaws. With Linux, shit just seems to work for me. Also, I like it over Windows (if you look past the part where many games aren't readily available)

Ubuntu and Mint seem so, I dunno, "noobified", and I'm not a "noob" per se. Ubuntu is an okay distro if you just want everything to work, yada yada yada and quite possibly Mint too, but I'd like to do some configuring myself. I never said I didn't wanna do any configuring myself. I dunno where you got that from.

That I have, and that's why I'm seriously considering Fedora. After all, I ran Fedora 16 for nearly a year, so that is the distro I'm the most familiar with and I doubt Fedora 17 is that much different from FC16. Once again, Ubuntu is nice, it is, no doubt, but it's too bloated. I'd either run Fedora 17, which I'm quite familiar with (and also have a few pain-in-the-rear moments with, with malfunctioning packages, etc.) or look into installing a Ubuntu minimal installation and only download packages as I go.

Nope. That is not a flaw, that is a good thing. It means that you use your computer with a restricted account, which has to ask for permissions when changing system config. A basic principle of security. You will have the same on Linux, unless you are one of those users that run their systems as root 24/7, which is from a security point of view the worst thing you can do.

Well if you want newer software but with little breakage, i highly recommend Opensuse. It doesn't offer bleeding edge, but it's very new and you can add other repos to get bleeding edge for select bits. I've used the wine and kde repos before in Opensuse to get rolling release and bleeding edge software for them two programs, and they worked very well. I also regard Opensuse to have the second best package manager, which is an oppinionative thing mind you. Being rpm based it will have some familiarity with you since you are used to fedora.

That is not the case, no, I don't know why you would even assume that? Like I said, I am the adminstrator which is the only account set up on my computer. I have completely turned UAC off because it bugs the hell out of me. I know what I'm doing so I don't need UAC. Why does it still say sometimes that I need permissions? What more permissions could I need?

Thanks, but I didn't really like OpenSuSE. I'm gonna give PCLinuxOS another look in Virtualbox. It wasn't fair to call it out like I did.

EDIT: Before any more misunderstandings arise, I said I want a bleeding-edge distro, but it doesn't restrict me to only look for those. I can be perfectly okay with a stable-but-lacking-new-features kind of distro as well.

In Windows, unlike in Linux, being administrator does not mean that you have all rights, but that you can get all rights.
Having said that, if you run your system as administrator, without UAC, this comes close to running as root on Linux. Obviously one of your statements is wrong, namely this: If you would know what you are doing you a) wouldn't need to ask this question because you would have informed yourself about the Windows security model, and b) you wouldn't run your system as administrator and without UAC.

May I ask, CrazyGuy158, what do you think UAC is for? I happen to think it's one of the things Microsoft have (finally) got right. The implementation on servers is a bit silly, I admit, but once you get used to it it's not an issue.

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, User Account Control is notifying when programs want to somehow make changes to my computer or when I do changes, depending on what level of it you have set. I find this extremely cumbersome and I have always disabled it whenever I reinstall Windows 7.

Hi,
Apparently you do not know what you are doing. Why run a system that is open to harm? UNIX/UNIX-Like & some Gnu/Linux are setup to secure the system so as not to have gotchas, weakness or holes that are potential problems for a system. UAC on a Microsoft system is a poor access control method. So do not associate UAC to a Gnu/Linux since the user controls/permissions are broader and easier to control on a Gnu/Linux in the hands of a good admin.

As far a I am concerned you can run as 'root' on YOUR machines. Your choice! If your running as root does not effect anyone else then it's OK by me. But when your system has been violated and problems occur that damage someone else then you are responsible. And you should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. We as users do have responsibilities to others if what we say or do affect other users.

Too many people cannot let Microsoft go therefore attempts to do something that aligns with what they know to a known secure system are just opening a Pandora's box. Some wish to setup Vista/7 UAC on a Gnu/Linux. I say: setup or modify your system to suit the environment not cripple it. One reason too many script kiddies can create issues is in that people do not understand security or hardening for a system.

Ease of use is one thing but to be too lazy to enter a password to allow actions is wrong in my book.

My

1 members found this post helpful.