Fedora

I've compiled entire distributions in amounts of memory that had Ubuntu's cd installer staggering and spitting OOM-killer messages. It should not take several hundred megs of RAM to sit there and copy files while you show a static image on the screen. Its memory requirements are ridiculous straight out of the gate.

The OP should try several of the flavors on LiveCD and see which one appeals to them. I personally like Mint because of its ease of installation, its easy GUI and it runs well on all the varied hardware that I've installed it on.

That may be, but overall I don't think Ubuntu's memory usage can be called excessive. If there is a situation with limited memory, one may need to look for something more compact.

A common situation is for a new user to install Ubuntu on a crummy old computer, and proceed 5 minutes into install, before the Ubuntu installer throws its toys out of the pram, filling the screen with cryptic messages and leaving the computer unbootable. User decides "linux sucks" and sticks the XP cd back in to reformat. I don't blame them -- it's not unreasonable to expect a Linux distribution to be able to run on a computer that could run Windows XP.

It's not about limited memory, it's about the assumption of unlimited memory. An installer built to run in 32 megs can run in 1024 megs, but not vice versa.

The installer doesn't even warn them, either.

I don't know Ubuntu that well, so i can't say anything about its installer, but the objections raised by Corona sound justified at least.

Moderator's Comments:

On the other hand I'd like to remind you that this is a thread about which "good free OS" the O/P should use and your discussion about installers, default shells and such is starting to lose any connection with this theme - in other words you are starting to get off-topic. Your discussion is a very interesting one, though and if you are interested in carrying it on I'll spilt this thread and you can continue. Just send me (or any other Mod) a PM.

bakunin