Linux which version of the operating system is more suitable

To pick the Linux distribution that best suits your needs, first determine which type of Linux user you belong to.

I think one of the biggest advantages of running Linux on the desktop is that it's a lot of choice. Linux enthusiasts can enjoy a wide range of desktop environments, file managers, terminals, GTK and Qt software, and, of course, Linux distributions themselves.

But then again, all these choices seem to be dizzying and overwhelming. Ordinary people who try to switch from other platforms to Linux are disoriented by conflicting advice, often leading to an overload of information. I'll cover a few helpful guidelines in this article, pulling away the fog. I will be based on your requirements, not the requirements of others to the weapon, and ultimately choose the most suitable for your distribution.

Three potential (future) Linux users
Over the years I have found that Linux users typically have the following three types.
Traditional operating system defenders-this may refer to a group of people who insist on not discarding the original set of Windows XP, or even refusing to upgrade to a version of the Mac user after Snow Leopard. They give a variety of reasons, some want to have a physical installation disk, some are unwilling or no money to upgrade to more innovative hardware. For whatever reason, these people run legacy platforms that are often unsupported and need to be shelved. The other thing these people often have in common is that they think their systems are being used well, why change?

Future Linux IT Pros-these people have almost never used Linux on their desktops before. They need to hone it skills, and access to Linux-based technologies is their choice.

Computer Amateurs-Computer amateurs are often the best candidates to use Linux instead. They are usually willing to spend extra time learning how the new platform works, rather than the old platform used in the past. If I had to choose a class of users to help them switch to Linux, not this group of people, it is because they are often interested in learning new knowledge.

Choose the right release version
Believe it or not, in terms of stability, choosing a Linux distribution based on a rolling upgrade or an officially released Linux distribution is an issue that is not worth arguing about. What really needs to be considered is the frequency of those updates, which the end user can fully control. For example, in the case of an officially released Linux distribution, every time you upgrade an application, there is always such a small possibility: where a software problem arises. Although the probability is very small, in the modern computing world there is indeed a case of executing the fault code. Our problems are errors (bugs), they are completely indisputable facts.

For those who run Linux for the first time, it is often scary to deal with an operating system that is greeted with a lot of updates every day. Of course, if it's the people who think they're computer amateurs, it's another story. These people like to change, because only change, they can continue to appreciate the new desktop experience, if there is a software error, then you can submit error reports to help others.

650) this.width=650; "src=" http://www.magedu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Linuxczxt.jpg "width=" "height=" 300 "Style=" border:0px;vertical-align:middle;margin:0px auto;height:auto; "/>

With this in mind, I have subdivided the recommended distributions as follows:
Traditional OS Stick-I recommend Ubuntu (Unity), Ubuntu MATE, Linux Mint, or elementary OS. Which distribution is best for you depends on the kind of user experience you're looking for. From my experience of letting users switch to the release version, I got the biggest success from Ubuntu mate and Linux Mint (Cinnamon). All of these distributions have a Debian tradition, with Mint/elemetary and Ubuntu "tied up with the same". Due to the large number of packages and ease of use, these distributions are a release version that really fits the traditional operating system adherence to the user.

And why are these distributions? Because they meet the following requirements: The update is easy to manage, does not overwhelm new users, looks beautiful, and is easy to use. Each of these distributions is also trying to make sure that the end user is able to get the system up and running without a lot of guesswork. This type of user just wants to get the desktop up and running, and let the software clash with the heck out of it. For such people, Linux is usually an economic choice, not a FOSS stance.

Future Linux IT Pros-in this case, I've always suggested using fedora. The main reason lies in fluency and practicality, not in any fancy aspect. If you spend a lot of time managing servers, you're likely to be in a red hat environment. Fedora found it differentiated into red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), making it very reasonable to work in the fedora environment.

Another advantage of using fedora is that community packages are at your fingertips as long as you're tinkering with a few repositories, thanks to community efforts, such as COPR (https://copr.fedoraproject.org). Like Ubuntu's personal package Archive (PPA) service, COPR also has a number of packages that can be used, and fedora may not have these packages available in the Software library. Fedora also offers one of the best examples: Use a thoughtful gnome desktop.

If you prefer KDE, then another stable enterprise workstation release will be openSUSE. There are some differences between package management and Iptables interface. It's worth mentioning that although I never recommend openSUSE to a regular novice, it does provide the best KDE Desktop deployment environment I've ever seen. Another benefit is its software services. While it may not be tightly integrated, I always rely on software build services to find packages that are not easy to find through the built-in openSUSE library.

For the budding IT pros, I recommend that you try these two distributions. Each has different advantages, it is worth trying, and then decide which one to choose.

Computer hobbyist-If possible, Arch Linux is a "must-install" release. Many users may end up with another distribution after the installation is complete. I strongly feel that real amateurs should have completed the arch installation in their lifetime, at least once. I also have to point out that many IT pros rely on arch for their own laptops and workstations. In addition, arch speed, Pacman Software management (Https://wiki.archLinux. org/index.php/pacman_-_an_introduction) and the ability to build a complete set of operating systems from the bottom up , these are quite attractive benefits.

Amateurs will love a full-featured arch Wiki and an accurate explanation of every piece of content. I found that, compared to any other distribution in the outside, the documentation is often much higher in terms of novelty and accuracy. While it's time-consuming to build your arch for the first time, the documentation almost always makes it possible for you to build and run it correctly on your head. Amateurs will enjoy hands-on experiences, daily updates and the most cutting-edge software available.

The only thing that really needs attention is reading the mailing list. Sometimes, there are software errors, workarounds, and other important things that you should be aware of before you can run the updated version. Reading the list ensures that you understand the situation, and you spend your spare time learning the path of the arch, rather than complaining about it kept the forum.

Only after you have completed the arch installation can you use Antergos (http://antergos.com) to "Speed up" future installations. Unlike other arch-based distributions, installing Antergos actually installs arch from the Arch Software library. The difference is the addition of the Antergos Software Library, and the installation of an arch common installation using the GNOME desktop. This is useful if you need to install arch on more than one machine and don't need a lot of customization. However, arch users will tell you that installing Antergos is not the same as installing arch itself. Not because of what it installs, but because of how it is installed.

What about other Linux distributions not mentioned?

What do you say? There are obviously some people in the reader who think that I have overlooked a major Linux distribution in each of the distributions I mentioned above. If you think which distribution is necessary to mention, welcome message communication. Don't forget to introduce their primary strengths and how they can best satisfy the target group's requests.

Original link: http://www.magedu.com/71714.html

This article is from the "Marco Linux Training" blog, so be sure to keep this source http://mageedu.blog.51cto.com/4265610/1926766

Linux which version of the operating system is more suitable