 sj |
||
|
||
TECH: Anyone use Linux?
|
|
|
Subject: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:46 AM Hello I've recently bought a new computer, so I've got my old one spare, so to speak. I'm interested in putting Linux onto it (P166 48Mhz RAM 2.1 GB disk) as the sole operating system, just to teach myself a bit about it, and maybe use it more if it's as good as I've heard. I'm getting really confused as to what to buy: Red Hat? Mandrake? SuSe? Any advice, please Thanks Paul |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: JedMarum Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:51 AM Red Hat may be the most commonly used and best supported. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: nutty Date: 17 Dec 01 - 09:47 AM I think Jon Freeman has experience of Linux. You could pm him or put a question on his site HERE |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:00 AM Nutty, I had read the thread but had decided not to reply as I don't have sufficient experience. Anyway, now my name has been mentioned. I did install and run Corel Linux for a while but it was more of a curiosity to me than anything else and in honesty, I never really got to learn it. Last week I decided to have another play with Linux and am in the middle of trying to install Debian. I had 2 CD sets loaned to me, 1 was Debian and the other was Mandrake. I chose Debian partly as the person who leant me the CDs said it is as robust as they come, partly because it seemed to have more packages to play with on the CD and partly as in some strange way I fancied having a go at what is reckoned to be a more difficult install than Mandrake and Red Hat. I'm afraid I really can be of no more help than that. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Fibula Mattock Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:09 AM If you just want to try it, I've heard you can use Monkey Linux. It's a mini version. Info here. I don't know anyone who has used it though, but it might be worth a try. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Date: 17 Dec 01 - 11:13 AM I use Caldera's Open Linux 2.4 on my Linux box. It's quite a nice one, with all the standard features. I have not had to use the Online Tech Support yet, but I hear it is good. That notwithstanding, I've heard good things about Debian, RedHat, & SuSe as well. Basically, try any one of them. Some of them are more geared to graphical installers, but they are all equally the same. WATCH which version of the Kernal you get with your system. Minimum right now is 2.4. It had been 2.2 for a few years, but don't get less than 2.2. The kernal is what deals with the low end of things, support for CD-ROMS, sound cards, etc are MUCH easier with a Kernal 2.4. Almost good but not quite up to date was 2.2. Hope that helps. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Date: 17 Dec 01 - 11:16 AM Oh! Forgot to ask. Where do you live? If you are in Europe, it might determine which one you get. Some of the Linux systems have better support than others in Europe. Oh, if you are in a bigger city in North America, look around for Linux Format, and Linux Magazine. There is also a North American Magazine called Maximum Linux. They all supply utilities and tools, and tutorials in the magazine and on the CD-ROM. If you get the version with DVD supplied, the UK magazines usually have a current distribution on it as well. They have web-sites for these magazines as well. If you need that, let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 17 Dec 01 - 04:27 PM Thanks, everyone George, I'm in the UK. I had quite liked the look of SuSE but it needs 64Mb Ram (I've only got 48 - sorry for the 'Mhz' - don't know where that came from!) to install according to Amazon.co.uk, so I'm not sure. Paul
|
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Date: 17 Dec 01 - 07:09 PM Shouldn't take long to rustle up the other little bit of RAM, but most aren't that much of a memory hog. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 17 Dec 01 - 07:50 PM Paul, How much UNIX experience do you have? If you already understand UNIX administration, you'll have no trouble with the Linux distributions mentioned here. If UNIX is a big mystery to you, then most Linux distributions will give you grief until you've finally read enought of the background documentation to enable you understand all the installation and configuration documentation. There are multiple graphical user interfaces that run on top of Linux and you will be asked to choose between them. There is no default interface like Windows. The default interface looks like this: $_ Linux is a great learning environment and a much better operating system than Windows. It can be used successfully by non-propeller heads with a minimum of previous exposure providing one has an experienced UNIX admin to set it up first. Linux is a serious OS, not a toy. The majority of commercial Web sites (e.g., the amazon.com site runs on Linux) are running on UNIX-like systems including Linux. No less a player than IBM has chosen Linux as the electronic commerce platform for all their systems from the largest mainframe down to the departmental server. One of the most common open-source UNIX operating systems for serious commercial use is FreeBSD. Getting it's name from the Berkley Systems Distribution of UNIX, it is freely available and I belive can be automatically installed directly over the Internet. Of course you'll want a high-speed connection if you want to try that. All UNIX-like systems including Linux assume the user can provide his own support or knows how to get support from the on-line archives and boards. Commercial support for Linux is available from several big companies but is very expensive. Their pricing models assume you are using Linux to make a lot of money and can afford professional support. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:05 PM Mark, which flavour would you go for? And which windows management system - Enlightenent or what and would you use Gnome or (what's it called - I've not got it) KDE??? Or would you stay text based? If using graphical interfaces, how compatible are programs between one system and another? Any other suggestions/ reccomendations for newbies, especially those like me who do realise Linux is a better OS than Windows, do not like (and I'm being nasty here) like supporting Microsoft and thier policies but get lost in what appears to be a new minefield of choices. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:15 PM Oh and forgot possibly the most important question for me. Any reccomendation for a good reference book - I mean one that goes a little further than "this is how you install it, this is X-Windows, Samba does this...." but is still written in terms that most people should be able to understand? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,drat Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:40 PM Unix/Linux, there are some varieties out there that contain nasty surprises, like the ones with ICQ inbuilt! You could be running, without knowing it, a email spamserver when ever you log on, and hey these guys are real smart too, even after you remove and reformat to MS DOS the darned thing is still there! Beware! I second the Debian remark, a little greedy for resources but with a good monitor and video card, generics won't do. it is pure heaven for those of us tortured by Winderz! Rock solid no lock ups and what I love about it is the Internet setup. Winderz, designed for a non networked computer from day one, is a disater! One needs a degree in Computer Science to set up Networking. Winderz is to Networking what rain is to golf, all bootin lockin and cussin. It sucks. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Bo Date: 17 Dec 01 - 11:04 PM While this is definately off topic lets try and answer this simply and in general enough terms to be pointed to by other threads :). You have a 486 that isnt doing anything and you want to try out Linux. Welcome! Good idea! Something to learn, nothing to lose. First off you really have at least 3 questions to answer. 1. What distribution of linux will run well on a 486 with 48meg of memory? 2. What distribution will I enjoy and benefit from learning? 3. What distribution wil do .... (insert Role here) To my best thinking: 486s are fine for non graphic intensive work. They will transfer files, work as firewalls and do basic word processing faithfully and reliably. If it hasn't busted so far, it is probably reliable. Linux is stable and efficient but it has far less marketing than Windows. This is actually the biggest efficiency saving for linux but it does have some drawbacks. Most people who buy Windows already know or are soon told what to do with their purchase. The choice with Linux is a little daunting and some of the enduser expectations are higher. Find some free distributions, you can download them from the web and burn them on CD or you can buy the distributions in magazines etc... My favourite Linux site is Linuxtoday.com My favourite distribution is Mandrake, it has all the red hat advantages and is more current and friendly. Relize that linux is also no longer targetted at 486's so read the specs to see if your machine fits the bill. Windows is like buying brand new shiny cutlery only to find your knives won't hold an edge. Microsoft can cut anything for you, for a price and you'll never notice if you only serve soup. Linux is a whole drawer of cutlery, some of it wicked sharp! and others dull, even dirty. You have to learn to care for your tools but after that you can carve anything yourself without anyone's permission and without microsoft's guestlist. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Rana Date: 17 Dec 01 - 11:43 PM I can't answer your question directly but this link might be useful. It is on Northern Journey Online which is also a great Canadian Folk music resource. Gene Wilburn also has a linux section which is linked below. Cheers Rana |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,drat Date: 18 Dec 01 - 12:17 AM Bo! I refuse to be upstaged or copimlicated! Your analogy is long on lingo and I am now cofusled! What in h*** do you mean dirty, as if the average user cannot ha hah ah... ooopz get the drivers |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Dec 01 - 01:40 AM I enjoyed Bo's comments. There is a great deal of wisdom in what he says. From the marketing perspective, Windows is ubiquitous and anyone buying Windows probably has used or seen a Windows system before. Odly, the same thing may be said of Linux. People installing Linux are mostly people who already know what to expect and how to get the job done. They didn't need the advertising and the hand-holding because they are already UNIX propeller heads and know how to solve any problems that will arise. I was tempted to compose a long Linux explanation here but then I figured other people had already published good explanations and I could be more useful just providing links. This may seem long but believe me, it's short. First let me say a little about what Linux really is. Linux, like UNIX, consists of a relatively compact core of machine-related instructions that do nothing but provide basic functionality for everything else. This core is called the kerlel. It is assigned arcane tasks such as scheduling events inside the processor, swaping memory “pages&rdquo between memory and disk storage, organizing disk drives and keeping track of how disks are used and handling TCP/IP networking. All other functionality is part of other program modules outside the kernel. The part of any Linux distribution that is actually Linux is only the kernel. That is what Linux really is. Everything else (the other 95%) in a Linux distribution is not really part of Linux. Most of the code in a Linux distribution comes either from the efforts of former BSD folks to build unencumbered (not privately owned) versions of UNIX code or from the efforts of Richard Stallman and the GNU (GNU's Not UNIX) project. Hundreds of dedicated people have spent thousands upon thousands of hours of their own time just to create a complete set of tools one would expect in a UNIX environment. They've done that so that the whole community can have a high-quality, reliable, standard computing and networking environment that is compatible with UNIX and not at the mercy of any particular corporation. Subject to the processes established by the Free Software Foundation and the GNU project, anyone may contribute work to the community. Any given Linux distribution will include the Linux kernel, most of the available GNU tools, other commonly available open-source tools and some unique code (install scripts, configuration utilities, etc.) that tend to differentiate one distribution from another.
My own Linux experience is mostly with the Red Hat distribution but I've played around with Slackware too. My UNIX experience includes Sun OS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and NeXTSTEP. A good way to start using UNIX commands without needing to install Linux is to download Cygwin. Currently part of Red Hat, Cygwin provides a very complete GNU (UNIX) environment running as a Windows application. You get the Borne shell (actually the Borne Again Shell or BASH) and all the command line utilities you'd expect in UNIX. You can learn vi (the primary UNIX text editory), EMACS, sed, awk, perl, gcc, ftp... nearly any UNIX tool you'd like to use is there along with a POSIX API so you can compile most UNIX code directly with having to modify if for Windows. It's been many years since I ran Windows without Cygwin. Naturally you'll want lots of documentation. I recommend the books published by O'Reilly as being generally excellent with enough detail to be useful. You'll also want a book by Evi Nemeth, et al. called “UNIX System Administration Handbook,” Prentice Hall. The latest edition covers Linux as well. I think the Gnome graphical interface is the most like Windows so Windows users will probably favor it. I prefer the KDE GUI but it's really a personal choice. I recommend trying them both and deciding which one you like. I'm really most comfortable with the venerable Motif but in the open-software world it seems to be losing ground, probably due in part to the difficulty of developing applications for it. I think there is also an OpenSTEP hack for Linux that emulates a NeXT Workstation; no Display Postscript though. You don't really have to worry about spyware with Linux. A single command-line tool (ps) will show you every process that's running so you can stop or kill anything you don't want running. Also, with Linux, there are no mysterious applications started. You have access to every boot and initialization script and can easily control what processes are started. Using Linux/UNIX is always a combination of graphical and command line tools. You'll often want to open a shell to perform command-line work or edit text using vi or EMACS but there are also a lot of tools you'll run as GUI apps such as Sun's StarOffice, a great set of applications providing all the functionality of Microsoft Office but free of charge. Good luck with Linux. If you have patience, you'll be rewarded. - Mark
|
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,drat Date: 18 Dec 01 - 11:19 AM Dear Mark Clark, thankyou for telling the Linders person more stuff. I think, correct me if wrong, that is what is wrong with Linux, all the experts and no real answers. To quote the great Guru hisself, RTFM. PIDs, to the uniniated a value for the command 'kill' in UNIX. They have a number, eg 1. The command kill 1, kills it. About your claims of all services being DISPLAYED, wrong! A devious distributor can and do include at low level, assembler code which provides them hidden access to the unfortunate user. It is not that hard to do, allbeit imoral and these days illegal. Since these turds are lazy as well as stupid they will choose some existing server such as ICQ for example. It runs and is not shown in the N*** commnand terminal. Enough! I am doing what I most dislike in Linux, preaching
|
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Dec 01 - 01:17 PM drat, You're welcome... I think. I'm not sure what you meant by the “Linders” reference but you've added a number of good observations to this thread. I've even seen tee shirts with RTFM (Read The F***ing Manual) emblazoned on them. A brilliant MVS systems programmer I once knew, who became weary of application programmers continually asking stupid questions before doing any research, had a sign on his wall that said “Hapiness is finding it yourself in the computing manual.” That was in the days when people were generally kinder towards one another than is currently the fashion. You're right that if you download and install software of unknown origin or unsubstantiated ethical standards, you could be running processes that seem to be innocent by appearances but in fact harbor trojan horses or worse. This would not likely happen to an experienced UNIX administrator but it could happen to a Linux neophyte whose only experience was with Windows. The average Windows user doesn't know how to prevent that from happening in Windows and the problem is only exacerbated when moving to Linux. Linux is most often deployed to support special purpose servers like Web servers, print servers, name servers, database servers, industrial strength firewalls and the like. Companies can use Linux as the primary desktop invironment for average business users but only if they are willing to keep a group of very experienced (read expensive) propeller heads around to support the computing environment. Most companies don't see any business value in maintaining a truly excellent computing environment and would rather settle for one that seems “good enough. Interestingly, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) believes that Linux is the only operating system available today (open or commercial) that has the potential of becoming truly secure, by their standards. They are currently releasing their own code into the open-source community in the hope of creating a completely secure operating system that everyone can use to make their enterprises, and the Internet, more secure. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 18 Dec 01 - 01:36 PM Many thanks everyone - special thanks to Mark for your long and informative posts Much appreciated Paul |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Jon Freeman Date: 19 Dec 01 - 09:07 AM I gave up with Debian. It was the hardware configuration that got me - I couldn't get the monitor settings right - well I could have tried manually editing the modes in ?xconfig? but I decided to see how Mandrake worked instead and I like it. Harddrake seems to have correctly set up most of my hardware correctly. I still have the "unkown" device which is my network card to sort out and a couple of "unkown" VIA devices - may make no difference - I haven't a clue what they are - motherboard things I guess. Otherwise things are looking good. I have got some of the Internet bits working - using Linux now but I still have to figure my main Freeserve connection. To my surprise, I managed to find a "linmodem" driver for my blasted "winmodem" and it works! - I was expecting to have to do a swap with Pip. (As a side issue, these winmodems should have big warning labels on the boxes - I bought the modem in a hurry trying to repair my PC after lightening hit it and it was only after I had fitted it and started installing it that I realised what I had bought... maybe they are OK but I'd never have bought it if I had seen it wasn't a proper modem) Oh well, I have some learing to do but I'm impressed so far. I even like little things like one user can log on and have a preference for Gnome, another can prefer KDE, etc. and I like the root login - I guess it could prevent a lot of nasty misshaps where computers are shared... I'll play for a couple of days and then try and see what I can do with it. One thing I'd like to try is learn MySQL and set Apache up and see if I can write a PHP version of the Annexe that runs on that system... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Dec 01 - 11:00 AM Jon, Sounds like you're on your way. One thing though, if you're looking at a database, you might want to check up on PostgreSQL. A great deal more work has gone into that over a much longer period of time. It's really the workhorse of the open-source database engines. Think of Oracle vs. Microsoft's SQL Server. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Jon Freeman Date: 20 Dec 01 - 10:42 PM Thanks Mark, I will read up on both. How do these things really stack up against the VERY expensive commercial programs? The impression I get is that you can build just as good, if not better and more stable, dynamic database driven web site using free software on these UNIX type bases as you can using NT/SQL Server/whatever solutions which look to me to cost $thousands in terms of software if you are looking to produce anything serious. The cyninc in me says there must be a catch but where is it? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:44 AM Jon, When planning the introduction of computing technology, the choice of products and the resulting architecture is rarely a cut and dried exercise. It isn't just a case of selecting best of breed components and plugging them in. Often competing solutions have slightly different features or performance characteristics. Sometimes one requires more in the way of support than another. Sometimes the skills for one choice are readily at hand and the most critical consideration is the completion date. That said, MySQL seems to perform more quickly in the trivial case—applicatons where the database stores information used only to serve Web pages and the data structure is rather basic. PostgreSQL has more features to control referential integrity and build more ambitious databases both in size and complexity. Just as a large corporation may use Oracle or DB2 for its business data and SQL-Server for its Web site, I expect there are enterprises that use both PostgreSQL and MySQL. As for expensive commercial products vs. their low-cost open-source rivals, many large and well-known enterprises rely entirly on open-source products to support aspects of their businesses. Netcraft regularly polls over 7.75 million active Web sites. Their latest report indicates that 61.88% use the free, open-source Apache Web server and that number is rising. Only 26.4% use Microsoft's IIS Web server and their market share has been falling since September. That may be due to the increased emphasis on security. A few other sites I checked from Netcraft are listed below:
Here is an article that appeared last July on the TechRepublic site called “What to consider when moving from MySQL to PostgreSQL.” It presents a good outline of the differences between the two. Here is an article that discusses NASA's switch to MySQL from Oracle. I think database systems like SQL-Server and MySQL have a shorter learning curve and are more popular with developers who don't have to worry about building enterprise class applications. Still, I don't know of anyone trying to run SAP on PostgreSQL. When they spend millions of dollars for the hardware they tend to go for commercial database products as well. Enterprise applications often need to be “highly available” so the DBMS must be able to fail over automatically to a standby system as well. At the same time SAP AG is pushing their proprietary database product out into open-source under the GNU license. Here is a Computerworld article talking about the growing popularity of open-source DBMS products. This one is kind of interesting on the history of PostgreSQL Do you think we've answered Paul's question yet? <g> I supose this isn't going to qualify as a musical thread. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 21 Dec 01 - 02:06 PM And this story ought to generate a few hundred million new Linux users. <g> - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 21 Dec 01 - 03:29 PM Thanks Mark. Yes you answered my question a while back *grin* All this extra stuff is interesting to me as well, though! Paul |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: John in Brisbane Date: 11 Jun 03 - 06:51 AM OK so I may be a couple of years behind the pack, but today I bought a Caldera Linux pack at a bookshop liquidation sale. It came with 4 CDs and 2 seemingly comprehensive manuals. I'll update when I make some progress - or otherwise. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: mack/misophist Date: 11 Jun 03 - 09:42 AM One possibility has gone unmentioned. There is a flavor called Knoppix that can be downloaded and run off a cd. This avoide most installation and hardware problems. As for the other distros. I haven't used Red Hat since 6 something, Mandrake hardware support has always been a problem for me, but SuSE has (with a few glitches) been very good to me; very good hardware support, etc. And I urge KDE over Gnome. Yes, eventually all linux users are going to have to know sone command line stuff. Your local community college probably has an Introduction to Unix course. Take it. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: John in Brisbane Date: 12 Jun 03 - 01:48 AM Thanks misophist for the somewhat ironis advice - no fault of yours. When enquiring last week about the availability of a place in a PERL course for next calendar year I was advised to learn UNIX first. I believed optimistically/naively that learning Linux might be an easy entry strategy. I guess I'll have to wait and see. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Mark Clark Date: 12 Jun 03 - 01:06 PM As a first introduction to UNIX for those already comfortable with computing, I recommend The UNIX Programming Environment, by Kernighan & Pike. It's an oldie but goodie that explains in a compact but detailed way the philosophy behind UNIX and how to approach the many tools provided with it. Brian Kernighan must surely be the best author to ever write about computing. His books are small and accessible and were mostly written before publishers discoverd that book sales are closely related to the shelf space they occupy. This book won't make one a UNIX guru but it will give you an idea what's going on and what to look for in other books. Naturally, the link I provided will credit Mudcat with the sale. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: GUEST Date: 17 Jun 03 - 07:13 PM WOW! A few days ago I came across one of those PC mags on the newstand that I normally ignore. It was PC Utilities from the UK and included inter alia a 700Mb Linux disc that claimed you could run Linux without any copying to your hard drive and hence no interference with other installed (Windows) applications. To get straight to the bottom line it worked beautifully, has a huge number of free quality programs, office suite, utilities, web servers, graphics etc. I didn't fully appreciate how user friendly Linux can be plus I had the familiar comfort of something that was very close to Windows in terms of operation. There was no nerdy stuff involved in using it at all. The Linux engine is Knoppix KDE 3.1 and is downloadable at knoppix.net. My recommendation would be to spend the few bucks on a prerecorded disc unless you have broadband to download the 700 Mb - most of which I gather is occupied by the actual applications. Like other Linux engines it can be permanently installed on your PC, but I haven't progressed that far. Regards, John in Brisbane |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 28 Jun 03 - 04:40 PM John in Brisbane - I downloaded Knoppix a couple of days back and have put it onto a CD-rom. Running from CD some of the applications are very slow. I gather that if it is installed to hard drive this it runs at a much improved rate. It looks good, but there are some things which I haven't yet managed to suss out, which limit what I can do. First I have saved some personal preference settings to floppy disc, but I haven't yet managed to find in documentation how to get them to reload at bootup time. Secondly I can get it to recognise a broadband modem connected with USB, but I haven't figured how to get Knoppix to use it to access the Internet. Have you discovered any useful tips to pass on yet? Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: John in Brisbane Date: 29 Jun 03 - 04:20 AM Iused the Linux disc on a newish P4 IBM of about 2Mhz/380 Mhz RAM and hence it was quite quick after the initial startup. I haven't yet got beyond that point. I'm operating on a heap of parallel projects and will therefore take some time to get back to Linux. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 29 Jun 03 - 05:39 AM Okay, thanks for responding. I seldom have spare time either. Just thought it would be worth asking. Quack!GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: TECH: Anyone use Linux? From: treewind Date: 29 Jun 03 - 01:41 PM Knoppix running off CD is fine if you don't want to store user data on the hard disk. And it's a bit slow, as mentioned. It's a very useful tool for doing odd jobs on a borrowed computer without changing any of its settings. It's also useful for a quick hardware test/compatibility check because its hardware detection is so good. As for distributions for installation, the well known ones are: Red Hat - you have to buy the full package now because it contains some non-free software. You can download some of it, and there are similar versions available on CD but they're not allowed to be called Red Hat. Mandrake - the most popular for easy installation and lack of required tech expertise. Gets a bit less easy when you want to maintain, upgrade and install packages. Uses RPM package format but not that doesn't mean that Red Hat RPM will always install correctly on a Mandrake system, as I found to my confusion. Debian - stable, reliable. Less easy to install but current version is far better than earlier versions. Excellent package management system. Once you get a Debian sysem set up the way you want it, you're very unlikely ever to need to reinstall it. My current choice, but expect to do some learning. Gentoo - great for bleeding-edge enthusiasts with broadband or similar access to the net. Suse - don't know much about it but comes highly recommended. There's not really a lot of difference between them, but there's a hundred ways of doing anything in Unix and each distro has a different mix: that's why they look different. Anahata |
| Share Thread: |