I want to try debian on a new netbook.

[donaldfarkas]

i have an ideapad s10e and when i went to debian site i can download a couple different images im just wondering which would suit me best.

these are the different links for images.
[alpha][amd64][arm][armel][hppa][i386][ia64][mips][mipsel][powerpc][sparc][s390][source][multi-arch]

[GNU-Fan]

Hi,

these are different architectures (processors).
If you have an "old" 32BIT Intel processor, you choose i386.
If you have a new Intel/AMD AM2(+) 64Bit processor, you choose amd64.
If you have an ARM netbook, you choose arm.
I think you got the idea.

Then there is an additional choice regarding the branches, "stable", "testing", "unstable". Usually for beginners "stable" is recommended, as it is well tried. But the software in "stable" is more than about one year old. So if your Netbook has really new hardware, "stable" might be too old to support it.
This happened to me, my computer's mainboard was too new. So I had to use "unstable" in order to get it fully working.

Maybe better start with Ubuntu when you are a beginner

[donaldfarkas]

well the processor is Intel® Atom™ Processor N270 so would this be concidered an i386?

[GNU-Fan]

Yes.
1234567890

[whych]

You can also try the eeebuntu beta version which is now based on pure debian and not ubuntu like the previous versions.
Great thing is that you can run it from usb stick to try.

[uldics]

I would take an image from /devel/debian-installer/ page
1.Testing, cause it is pretty stable and has rather new software with updates every few days (stable is old, but good for servers, unstable is sometimes well unstable)
2. Netinst, cause it spares you download (and CDs) time, but you need internet when installing
3. i386, cause thats what your processor can run.

[Transmogrifox]

Probably the best "path" is to do as recommended in the other posts:
i386, Netinst image.

But start with Debian stable. If the Stable branch supports your hardware, then this is probably the best. If something on your system is not supported in stable, then upgrade to Sid. I would not recommend using testing. My experience is when a bug trickles into testing, it takes a lot longer to get the fix to follow. So, while there is a higher chance for strange things to happen in Sid, the fixes come much more quickly. Read Debian's blurb about stable/testing/unstable to gain a feel for what impact this has on you. Note that to upgrade to Sid, the Debian recommended path is Stable-->Testing-->Sid. If you try to go Stable-->Sid without the intermediate upgrade to Testing, you may have problems.

A note about CD images: You have to download your system one way or another. You can download a smaller image to save initial download time, but intallation process is longer because the installer needs to download all the extra things not on the CD. However, if you download multiple images, or larger images, then you get a faster install process. I personally use Netinstall image because I start from the ground up in Debian and only install what I need. Since Netinst is so minimal, I only end up downloading the software that is actually installed on my system as the installer doesn't fetch things you don't need.

My reasons for preferring stable is because I don't have a very fast internet connection. I think when many people think of "Stable" it means that the operating system runs more stable (less bugs and other configuration problems). While this is true of Debian stable, I think the Debian meaning is that the repository is stable: Not many large or frequent changes to software in the stable repository...I think the Debian developers aim to make the software performance stable in all branches. I wouldn't put Sid on an enterprise server unless I was personally keeping up on changes and security issues on a daily basis...would be a lot more work than using Stable. But on a desktop, a person can weather a few quirks from time to time.

What this means to you as a user is updates are infrequent and relatively small. Here is an example from personal experience:

On my development computers I use Sid. I have actually found Sid to be very "Stable" (few bugs, no crashes)...in fact, I prefer Sid over Ubuntu. The "unstable" part is that updates need to run every day because the repositories are changing rapidly on a daily basis. If I go a week or two without updating, there are sometimes in excess of 200MB - 600MB (size of install iso image) worth of updates to download and install. Even with a relatively fast internet connection, that takes time... or you take it in a few minute increments every day. Debian Testing is the same story although changes are a little less rapid.

On Debian Stable, there aren't new updates every day, and when there are updates they are small. I can run updates every two weeks to a month on Debian Stable and the download size is often less than 20MB. Of course, the more of a minimalist you are, the less you will have to update. For example, if you were a command line junkie and surf the web w/ Lynx, playback music with scripts and write email with mutt...then updates will be quite small.

Well, there's another angle to consider.

[previso]

Knoppix, simplest full featured deb. Get the live CD (torrent is good way):
Download Knoppix Live CD or DVD, Get Documentation and Help
I usually start w/ the CD and install applications as needed (you pick and it downloads for you).

[lugoteehalt]

Re stable or unstable. Would it be possible to use a backport kernel? No idea myself. Best of both worlds - stable and modern.

[whych]

@Transmogrifox
If he wants debian, I would suggest using eeebuntu4 beta. This is now a pure debian version with some tweaks for netbooks.