Interesting to read the responses so far - from the novices like me to some serious experts who quote code-edits!
After years of Windows-as-default, from 95 to 98 to XP, I decided that when XP's end of support date loomed I ought to look at options. Why? I resented the cost of Windows upgrades, I disliked the intrusive tactics and protectionism of Microsoft, and while I can live with Win7 I find Win 8 unappealing and the attempts to force Win10 on users unacceptable.
The open-source diversity of Linux appeals, as does its greater security. I am still daunted by the idea of having to go into the terminal and use the command line, so I was attracted to the distros that offered a reasonable chance of working out-of-the-box and which had an interface and user-experience that was not too alien or complicated.
I ended up looking at four key criteria:
i)
reliability. The absolute priority. With so many distros to choose from, it seemed sensible to focus on the most widely used, widely tested, and well-established. The Linux world is full of distros, or variations, which seem to come and go. There are however a few which have - so far - survived and improved, thus offering a reasonable prospect that flaws will have been spotted, addressed, and ironed out. An OS is like a car: you want above all to get from A to B smoothly and safely. No point in getting an exotic custom-car if it spends more time on the hard shoulder than rolling along the road;
ii)
design. There are some very elaborate all-singing, all-dancing and no doubt endlessly tweakable distros out there. Some (Arch Linux?) are way too complex for newbies. For me simplicity and user-friendliness win out over fancy visuals and gimmicky tricks every time;
iii)
support. Sooner or later every user is likely to need help. Sometimes a good help manual, or clear troubleshooting guides, are enough. Beyond that, the support forum(s) are key. Ubuntu in the wider sense is a mixed blessing: the large community, and multitude of forums, mean there is almost too much information - and a lot of it, when it consists of command texts and code edits, is incomprehensible except to experts and geeks. So the forum for any specific distro is important. It has to have a big enough membership to tap into a decent reservoir of knowledge. Dialogue has to be predominantly in plain, easy-to understand language. And the "atmosphere" has to be welcoming, tolerant and sympathetic. No-one likes to be treated like an idiot or ignoramus, but equally it can't be assumed that every poster has a high level of expertise or understanding.
iv)
longevity. This is a tricky one. OSs are constantly evolving because the underlying technology - and the ways of using it - are progressing and changing. I resented having to ditch each generation of Windows OS for the next, newer, brighter, shinier model. But at the same time, I wanted my OS to be able to cope with the changing and increasing demands being made on it. This gets us to the thorny question of rolling release distros, versus new-version or new-edition distros. To use the car analogy again, I wanted an OS like a Porsche 911. Fundamental design and configuration unchanged for decades,so the current model looks and feels very like a 20-year old one. But up close, constant refinement has made it better, faster and more reliable. That's a rolling release. The alternative, a new model every year which may or may not look similar (even if it has the same name-badge) and which may or may not be better but certainly has a different control layout and a different shape and style, is the equivalent of most Linux distros. The increasing trend to LTS versions supported for 3, 5 or more years seems to be a move in the right direction.
So where did all this lead me? To a short list, each of which I am still test-driving:
- Linux Lite: ticks almost all the boxes - reliable, user-friendly, clean uncomplicated design, thoughtful support, excellent forum.... but I have already tried three versions in less than two years - 1.0.8, 2.2 and now 2.6.
- Linux Mint XFCE: very similar and the closest competitor, with most of the same boxes ticked;
- PCLinuxOS: I went for it mainly because it is a rolling release distro. It has a superb forum and community with some seriously good and helpful members. It is non-Ubuntu.... and it has a very rigorous approach to controlling and checking software repositories which is very reassuring , reduces the risks of foul-ups, and helps stability and reliability. The KDE version is far too elaborate and complex, but I find the MATE version to my liking, even if the visual styling is not as smooth and slick as LL and Mint;
- Zorin: chosen largely because of its deliberate appeal to XP refugees. I have been running Zorin 6; there is now a Zorin 9 release. I am growing less enthusiastic about it partly because it has a lot of gimmicky visual options (wobbly windows etc). The forum is good but the community is, I suspect, quite small.
- LXLE: tried out initially because I had to find something that would run on an older Dell with a non-pae processor. It's OK, but the design and software is a bit of a hotch-potch. I don't find it as easy or intuitive as my other choices, and I can't ever imagine using it as my main or only OS.
So - I still haven't made a definite decision. I like PCLinuxOS but just wish it looked a bit more stylish (eg by having an XFCE desktop). Linux Lite 2.6 is just a fraction ahead of Mint 17 in my current preferences. Now if only Linux Lite were a rolling release......
Ah, choices, choices!
