[jb9]

The only reason (other than someone's personal preference) why I think limit is "better" for a beginner would be that individual mistakes are not as costly in limit. However, this is not sufficient reason (to my mind) to generally recommend limit over no limit as long as the beginning no limit player manages his bankroll properly (you can, for example, play $2.00 max buy in no limit, wherein your risk to your bankroll will be quite small).

Regarding the "fundamentals of poker," I just don't see how limit teaches this better than no limit. If anything, no limit is more complicated and requires learning more fundamentals than limit since bet sizes must be taken into consideration and implied odds are much larger (and many people would argue that reading your opponents is much more important in no limit).

One could argue that at low levels too many no limit players "just go all in" instead of "playing poker", but one could also argue that at low levels too many limit players "chase any draw" and "play any 2 suited cards" so that it is just a "lottery" to see who gets dealt the best hand.

As for analysis, I think that is a matter of personal preference. It may be more complicated to analyze play in no limit games, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

I think learning different variants of poker will necessarily help your game in the long run, but it will slow down your learning process for each particular variant. Each variant has qualities that make it unique. While some arguments could be made about which variant is better suited for new players, IMHO as long as a new player knows the basics and risks of the form of poker they are playing, they should play what they like.