resignator writes:
"'Arm yourself with the information needed before telling someone to install such and such distro because it's great,' warned blogger Ken Starks in his recent FOSS Force post. 'It might be great for you, but maybe not so much with my hardware choices.'
What considerations do SoylentNews readers have when recommending an OS? What OS do you recommend the most or least? How far would you go to 'tailor' a Linux distro to a potential adopter before recommending something that will work out of the box but lack non-essential features?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by etherscythe on Wednesday March 05 2014, @08:12PM
On the flipside, Ubuntu is a pretty common support target for many software packages - chances are, if there are any instructions that are noob-friendly, they will give pretty explicit directions for Ubuntu. This will make your job exponentially easier if you have to do anything with the system later that you don't know like the back of your hand.
The most I would ever "customize" an install for someone is to choose a sub-variant like Xubuntu or Kubuntu. The more you change the "out-of-box" configuration, the more time will have to be spent getting it to work properly, and the less often standardized instructions will apply without modification.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday March 05 2014, @09:25PM
Well people who have worked in offices are generally happier with KDE, and Kubuntu is pretty sweet.
I've installed that for people quite a few times.
It has a start bar that is functionally the same as windows, an their approach to finding
their documents and doing their work can be largely the same. So the learning curve is much less.
Ubuntu with its new out of the box interface is minimalist, but good enough for Grandma, or kids with nothing to do but surf. Or any other users that have never seen a real distro before. Or Mac users converting to Linux.
Personally, any form 'Buntu is not my cup of tea.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.