[ashaiba]

What is the best Linux Distribution out there that comply with these rules

Easy to use
Nice GUI
Compatible with many Drivers/Software
ect ect ect

try not to make it fully opinion based but fact based

What is better in terms or ease and gui. Ubuntu or Mint?

[ashaiba]

also, i dont no how to edit, i dont see the button anywhere, so please dont get mad anyone for "bumping"

but can someone explain to me why Linux is better then Windows XP?

[Cew27]

ok well first off linux is better than xp because
its free
its faster
its more stable
its more secure
its open source
you can boot from cd
it looks better imo

now as for what is best, there is no real answer to this as its down to preferencee but in my eyes mint comes pretty close if you want 32 bit, it is just ubuntu with a nicer theme and all the proprietary codecs ect (java,flash, video and mp3 codecs) pre installed ubuntu didnt do this as it is illegal in some countries so it just mean you have to spend 5 minuets downloading and installing them when you install ubuntu.
mint also has some extra tools to help configure the desktop.
anything you can do on mint you can do on ubuntu.
there are other distributions i would recommend trying sutch as open suse, pc linux os and simply mepis
have a look at this thread it should help

[spot]

The edit option for a post only lasts a while, I'm not sure how long (maybe a quarter hour, I'm guessing). For as long as it lasts the three buttons to the right of every post (Reply With Quote, Multi-Quote This Message, Quick reply to this message) have a fourth just to the left of them (Edit/Delete Message).

Linux GUIs have an underlying graphics handler, X11, which just sits there invisible on top of the running terminal session which is all text. The GUI is the froth on the operating system that you get to see. You power up, the terminal session begins, linux knows you want to see pictures so it starts X11 automatically, X11 knows what GUI you prefer and probably shows you its login screen, you enter a password and you're away. Everything up to the login screen is quite often hidden by a pretty graphic so as not to scare the children. It all gets logged in case a techie wants to tune the system, nobody tries to read it as it flies by. If you've ever watched a Microsoft operating system start in safe mode you'll see the same sort of beginning.

The "which GUI" discussion isn't just cosmetic. For one thing each GUI has a graphics library which programs can hook into so programs written for one GUI won't always run unless that GUI's library is loaded in that distro. There are two major GUIs with libraries like that and a swarm of programs, nearly all of them alternative utilities, which follow them around, KDE and Gnome. Some distros carry both KDE and Gnome libraries and one GUI, some carry both GUIs, some just have one. A few have neither. Those Mint distros on the download page have a GUI column which they label "DESKTOP" and you'll see that they have a couple of CDs with Gnome on it, one with KDE, one with XFCE, one with Fluxbox. How do people choose which GUI? Some people have old computers which run quicker without a lot of froth and they choose a lightweight GUI with few demands on the system. Some choose lightweight because they prefer less complication. Some run their linux PC with no GUI and no X11 at all, just the terminal login and a text screen, but they're people you wouldn't want to meet on a dark night.

What you'll find is that all you learn to begin with about any distro is actually learning how to use the GUI - what shortcut keystrokes exist (they tend to differ and they tend to be customisable anyway), what utilities there are, how to configure the desktop. Consequently once you've learnt that much, sitting at a different GUI feels nasty because you know nothing all over again. So people learn, say, Gnome and then wonder why the hell anyone would want to use KDE it stinks, and vice versa. Or they learn the Zen lightness of a GUI with practically nothing in it, rather like living in a Scots glen five miles from the next shieling, and wonder why anyone prefers the middle of London that is Gnome.

As far as drivers go, they're effectively an aspect of the linux kernel. Every distro carries a copy of the kernel, either more or less recent. More recent has more drivers. The kernel isn't developed with the distro, every distro goes cap in hand to the Holy Mountain at kernel.org and comes back with a reasonably current copy they can live with. A lot of the testing of a distro release by the distro developers involves gritting their teeth, stepping up to the latest kernel and then finding out what they need to change in all their other programs to be able to still run. A stable distro is one where they've tested all the combinations. Every distro carries a copy of the kernel source and a push-button that says "press here to recompile the kernel the way you want it" and anyone who wants to pick up an intensive education in operating systems gets comfortable with compiling their own. Once they can do that they can build any extra drivers into their system that they want. There's also a "modprobe" utility that loads new drivers on the fly which you can pre-set to run at startup time.

The software out of the box is what you'll use while you get the feel of the system. You can often do that without installing by getting the live CD and test driving on that. I've gone months with no hard drive at all on my computer just using a live CD and a USB memory stick for my personal files, it's no hardship and you can pick up and carry on wherever you happen to be that day, the machine you're sat at is transparent.

When you want to add new software which the distro builders recommend but which wasn't in the box you have to read a bit of the distro user guide. It'll have a chapter called Installing Software. When you want to add new software which the distro builders have never heard of you still might have to read the chapter called Installing Software but you'll also have to read the instructions with the package you want to install.

Every linux has the equivalent of Administrator permissions. On a Microsoft system it's a frustration to only have limited permissions and everyone who has the choice elects to run day in and day out with full admin rights. On a linux system only the dickheads behave that way, they know the peace of mind which comes with using as few permissions as they need. They have a root account for deliberately changing their configuration, they have a user account for the rest of the time. Whenever they want to adjust their system they just say "for the next series of commands, give me root access" and confirm with a password. It's the difference between wearing a seatbelt on a motorway and not doing. Sure you're a good driver. So what.

Linux isn't better than XP. It's different. You have the option under linux of being in control. You can keep your hardware feeling adequate to living in the modern world for an extra five years. On the other hand there's a whole bunch of programs, mainly games programs, which are fine-tuned to run with Microsoft and which won't run under linux and if there's even just one of those you can't let go of then linux isn't a practical option for you. For a lot of people moving to a linux distro is a way of rediscovering the fun of having a computer. A lot of that's in getting competent at using it. Most people who own a Microsoft system are incompetent at using it and the rest rely a lot on faith.