What's the best distribution?

A subject dear to my heart. Linux is Linux. Every distribution is built on the same basic kernel, and in the hands of one who knows Linux, a Debian installation can look identical to a Red Hat installation, which (ahem) can look identical to a (cough) Slackware installation.

The primary differences between the distributions are in installation methods and provided software.

• Debian has the most capable installation method. Much preferred among those experienced with UNIX. Comes with no value-added software. Generally hailed as the most stable of the major Linux distributions. This of course means that, what is known as the debian stable release tends to be slightly behind the times, preferring only those packages which have proven their reliability.
• Red Hat is one of the easiest Linux distributions to install for newbies. Moderately stable, with a value-added browser and X server in the commercial form. Red Hat also offers 30-day technical support for purchasers, which - if you need it - is worth the cost of the commercial version. Of course, as a real Linux distribution, you can still download it (minus the value- added components) for free.
• Slackware is Patrick Volkerding's hand-rolled distribution. It's easy enough to install, because it's packaged in small chunks that must be processed in order. Generally, Slackware is the best laid trap for Linux newbies; it's a security nightmare, out-of-date, and buggy. All that said, Slackware is still Linux.
• SuSE is a German distribution. I don't have any more information on this as I've not used it and no-one has sent me an in-depth review of any kind.
• Stampede is a Pentium-optimized Linux. Sorry; no more info on it yet.
• Turbo Linux is another distribution I've noticed.
• Mandrake: a review would be welcomed.

There are many more distributions; I just don't have any experience with them to describe them. If you do, please let me know. In the meanwhile, do check out Distrowatch for all the latest and greatest on distributions. If it isn't mentioned there, it's not worth running either.

The thing that is most commonly misunderstood, and the root cause of all the "distro-wars" is the fallacious belief that there ought, for some mystical reason be One True Distribution. One size does not fit all. Which distribution is best depends on what you, the poor sod who has to use it want to do with it, and what your goals are.

Here are a couple of quotes from various inhabitants of the channel:

Einstein_:

Welcome to the distribution wars. Every one of them sucks. The key is finding the one that, for you, sucks least.

japh:

The best way to learn is to fail... just grab one and start failing.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that xyz distro is the ``simply the best'' distribution. What matters is what you think, and what is right for you, not them.

The unfortunate consequence of this is that really, you have to try each to some extent to get any real idea of what is best for you. Realising this is infeasible, look at the brief overview given above, and try to decide what is best for you from that. You can always change your mind later on. If you get linux from someone like cheapbytes, make the courier cost worth while by ordering several CDs. This would be an ideal opportunity to order a CD of several distributions, so you can try them out at your leisure.

Having said that, it is true that some distributions are generally better organised than others. You may have detected a slight bias against slackware, well, that is because in the opinion of this humble author, slackware is best summarised in the words of sjh, one of the channel ops:

Slackware doesn't check dependencies on packages, doesn't install security/bugfix patches, and has no means of upgrading itself without trashing your system settings. You don't ``upgrade'' things in Slackware -- you attempt to install something, then try to fix whatever the crap broke.