Which Distro?

[carrja99]

Originally posted by lindowsOS
Why? I think those are great way to learn Linux. You have a functional, easy-to-use system, and then you can pick up from there.
This is just an opinion, but I think it is much harder to just try and learn from a distro that is not intended for newbies?

Lindows is ABSOLUTELY NOT a good way to learn linux. Several problems with it, such as not having it open source. Logging people in as root automatically will help them make bad habits. And finally, overall it is not much like a REAL linux distro.

However... Mandrake is a good starting point to learn linux :D!

[Shuja]

Originally posted by atif
I am currently using RedHat 8.0 (latest release as of writing) and have found no over the top problems. Installing rpms is a breeze if not as elegant as the debian way of doing things vis.using apt-get XXXXX et al[/B]

You can install apt-get on a redhat system. I use it all the time to keep my machines up to date. It's a much easier way to install software and it takes care of dependent packages automatically.

As for the best distro once again... Someone new to linux will tend to pick and choose to find one they find easy and stick to it until they learn that all distros are basically the same at the core. There are things I like out of other distros and I simply get it and install it on my system. It's not a big deal since given some time anyone with enough knowledge can make a redhat system feel and work like a mandrake, debian, gentoo, etc.... down to the point of the mandrake logo (I've seen it done... why? I don't know...) or a custom logo. Linux can be configured, thats all a distro is... a name slapped onto a set of included programs and configuration. It's all the same boys and girls, a distro is a starting block for you to configure it to the system that you want, or just build it from scratch... which is a great learning experience, though one for advanced users.

[viperlin]

this is a little off topic but has anyone here tryed BYO Linux (http://www.byolinux.org/) ?
i beleve that this is technically the best idea in some sence, as if you build the system yourself then surely you will know it inside out, plus it's kinda kool

[alsius]

ok, maybe i might try out red hat, since obviously mandrake hates me. lol. the problem is, i only have one burnable cd left. is there any other distro, that is newbiefied that i can put on one cd. i know, i know "go buy more cds...." but i'm impatient and i WANNA TRY LINUX!! AAAAAAHHHHH!

[jonts_matrix]

Hey Ya'll
I'm currently running mandrake bluebird, i wish 2 upgrade my box, which flavour shud i install, suggest me sumthin worth downloading and installing. i'm willing 2 swtich 2 other distros
plz suggezt

thanx

[think_penguin]

People will suggest many different distros.
Really if you have the time try as many distros as you can. There are tons: MDK, RH, Debian, Gentoo, SuSE, Slackware (appologies to any distros that got forgotten).

All of these distros have different strengths and weaknesses, and different ease of use. So just try some of them out, and see which one you like. Thats my advice anyway.

[mdwatts]

Caldera OpenLinux Workstation 3.1.1

Only the best...

[Woodchip]

Might as well add to this thread and make it an even 300th post. Since ive been a HAPPY linux user since saturday, Must say it was an adventure and since my sucess I onlyTHEn bought three linux books at the mall which came with their own stripped down punishers editions of Red Hat and Caldera. installed those... went back to my Mandrake ISOs and installed again.. heck ive installed only about 12 times this weekend anyway. Coincidentally there was a computer show here in NJ this weekend and I took my pile of parts that I initially friday night installed on Out with the 4 gig in with a 20.. added another dimm (probnably the last dimm i would buy since all the other machines in the house are ddr) 48/64/128 = 240 which speeded up the install process from an hour to 35 mins. Exchanged the CD drive which probably a dirty lens which gave me many read problems compounding the difficulty of initial installs with a new 24/16/48 for 30 bucks... while i was at it bought another usb mouse ( i was borrowing one from my sons machine) added a new floppy drive (turned out to be a bad ribbon cable) so for around 100 bucks i took a salvaged celeron 533 and made it my Happy Camper Mandrake box :-) since the comp has an old "happy computer" sticker on the back from its anchient probably out of business vendor. I gotta say the happiness is like having a new son getting this to work. I know to most veterans its just a simple OS install but for me its the beggining of a new journey resparked friday in a chat room when the idle convo turned to Linux and I felt a bit left out since my failed attempt back in the ZDTV leo laport days with my old p2 350 multi boot. where i couldnt get an X desktop,

[Samba_man]

Slackware 8.1

Almost better than cookies :D

[sharth]

nothing, and i mean nothing, is better than cookies... except sugar cookies... *drool*

[think_penguin]

I must disagree.... Although sugar cookies are almost beyond compare. I think watching the simpsons while eating sugar cookies is the best. I mean think about it, youve got great fun.... and SUGAR COOKIES!
(sorry that thats a little off topic, but it needed to be said)

[sharth]

hmm.... but then you don't get to give yourself the full attention of eating the sugar cookie... I'm not too sure about them simpsons.. UNLESS you are watching the simpsons eat sugar cookies WHILE you eat sugar cookies... That might be better... *mmm*

now, was there a question here that we were supposed to be helping with?

Ah yes, I'd say for the sake of things, try atleast an rpm distro, a deb distro, and a source distro.

[dstammer]

Debian 3.0 and christmas cookies right out of the oven!

[sharth]

debian is one cd.
gentoo is one cd (live cd i think)
knoppix is a debian based linux live cd.

[ShieldWolf]

I have to vote for Knoppix. So far it has worked perfectly in every computer I've tried it in, and doing a hard-disk install is almost effortless.

[Samba_man]

Gonna have to agree with all of you.....

Just about any Linux Distro......and Any kind of cookies fresh out of the oven.....

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm :D

[tankinan]

Libranet is a lot simpler of an install than debian and includes a few more features. It runs pretty well for me.
With that being said,

Please *Try* to use at least semi-proper grammar. If you know it, use it. If you don't, then at least try. Most people don't want to spend time decoding blatantly improper grammar.

Sorry to nag, but it's just proper nettiquite.

[boygenius]

My final response, since I'm basically repeating myself.

Yes, and you are about as useless as a broken record as well.

Slackware is difficult to use without giving you extra flexibility like Debian or Gentoo, it has a very limited selection of packages, unlike every major distro, it has no commercial support, unlike Red Hat, and even though it's more UNIX-like than other distros, the BSDs have that covered.

Slackware is difficult to use? Hey numbnuts, this is the first reason to use Slackware.

1. It does not hold your hand and treat you like you are an idiot (though in your case, and obvious exception must be made). If you don't want something installed, it will not install it. What you want is 1-800-howdoIrunLinux line. 2. Slackware forces you to read the docs, and guess what? You actually learn something. 3. Slackware does not hide the config files, and guess what? You actually learn how to run Linux. Catching on yet you moron?

So what's Slackware good at?

Everything except for morons who want a GUI and a wizard to hold their hand while running Linux. What happens when you have to fix something and you don't have your wizard? The next Bill Gates is stuck, pissing his pants, and reinstalling Linux when the problem could have been fixed easily. I hope you are never in a position to be a system admin, the hackers will have a fun with you Bill.

Because Slackware doesn't have dependancy checking, a bare-bones system can be installed onto as little as 100MB. While this allows Slackware to be used on very old hardware that other general purpose distros have left behind, small single-purpose distros are quickly gobbling up that niche.

Oh really you moron? Another, it does not check for dependencies and hold my hand" whine. I just love those failed dependencies. Slackware assumes you know what you are doing. (a) You can develope TGZ -remove package, make your changes, remake the package, and then install it. (b)RPMs are larger binary files. They install slow on older computers. The so called reason to use RPMs is for dependency checking. RPM based distros have a database that lists which RPMs are installed and what they require to be installed. So if you want to install something, if you do not have such and such, you are out of luck. You can try --force or --no-deps, but that fails 99% of the time. . When you compile from source, you can have up to date and more stable program. Whenever a program is compiled from source, the RPM database doesn't get updated. So the biggest problem with dependencey checking, is dependency checking. Are you starting to see a pattern now? My Slack box is more up to date than anything you are running you moronic, ill informed Windows weaned, penis head.

4. Slackware is simple, no fluff. Slackware works.

That leaves Slackware with nothing. Nada. Zip. There is no advantage to running Slackware other than learning how to run Linux through the CLI.

5. You forgot to mention that Slackware is lean, mean, and stable. Some people like to compile their programs instead of using some packaging tools. You know what that means? Complete control! You know nothing about Slackware and you best shut it up when you insult such a fine distro. Bottom line: Bill Gates wannabe, wants Linux to hold his hand. You are lame. Learn Linux, not Windows.

[nextbillgates]

Slackware is difficult to use? Hey numbnuts, this is the first reason to use Slackware.

Using Slackware is like mowing my lawn with a weedwacker. Both are difficult, time consuming, and offer no reward or other benefit.

1. It does not hold your hand and treat you like you are an idiot (though in your case, and obvious exception must be made).

No it doesn't. What it does do is use an aging init system which has been replaced by something more powerful and intuitive on every other major distro.

It also forces the system administrator to go searching for source code for all but the most basic system components. Not only does every major distro (except for Gentoo) provide tested packages for nearly everything that an administrator would ever want to install, forcing you to go with source code means you need a compiler. On a server, that's a no-no.

If you don't want something installed, it will not install it.

I'll give Slackware that.

What you want is 1-800-howdoIrunLinux line.

On the contrary, I'm quite skilled in Linux.

Slackware forces you to read the docs, and guess what? You actually learn something.

Exactly. That makes it a great distro to learn UNIX. However, when one is satisified with their amount of UNIX knowledge, having to read tons of docs just to do the simplest things becomes tiresome.

Slackware does not hide the config files, and guess what? You actually learn how to run Linux.

I have yet to come across a distro that hides it's config files.

Everything except for morons who want a GUI and a wizard to hold their hand while running Linux. What happens when you have to fix something and you don't have your wizard? The next Bill Gates is stuck, pissing his pants, and reinstalling Linux when the problem could have been fixed easily. I hope you are never in a position to be a system admin, the hackers will have a fun with you Bill.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Just because I don't want to waste my time doing every little menial thing doesn't mean I don't know how to. I hope you're never in a position where you'd be required to administrate a large amount of computers. By the time you got done configuring every little detail by hand, you've already reached retirement age.

Oh really you moron? Another, it does not check for dependencies and hold my hand" whine.

Hold my hand? Even Slackware packages and source code need dependancies, but if you don't have a certain binary or library, good luck hunting it down.

I suppose I could write my own software to satisfy the dependacy, without using anyone else's code, in machine language. That would fit your "harder is better" view perfectly.

The so called reason to use RPMs is for dependency checking. RPM based distros have a database that lists which RPMs are installed and what they require to be installed. So if you want to install something, if you do not have such and such, you are out of luck. You can try --force or --no-deps, but that fails 99% of the time.

Slackware packages will install fine, but if you don't have the software that the binaries within the package depend on, it will fail. Just like the RPM. However, the RPM will at least tell you what you need, so you don't have to hunt down software and hope that it meets all the dependancies of the TGZ.

When you compile from source, you can have up to date and more stable program. Whenever a program is compiled from source, the RPM database doesn't get updated. So the biggest problem with dependencey checking, is dependency checking.

Slackware has the same "problem", and the same solution. If you install from source in Slackware, it won't show up in the package manager. But since you already have it, you can install software that depends on it.

Same in Red Hat (or any other distro that checks dependancies). Installing from source won't add a listing, but since you already have it, you can install RPMs that depend on it.

Both packaging systems also allow you to make a package from source, and install it as you would any other package.

Slackware, as per usual, has nothing over the competition.

My Slack box is more up to date than anything you are running you moronic, ill informed Windows weaned, penis head.

/looks at Gentoo box in corner

I highly doubt that.

4. Slackware is simple, no fluff. Slackware works.

Every other distro works.

5. You forgot to mention that Slackware is lean, mean, and stable.

I already said Slackware was lean and mean. It's no more stable than any other correctly configured distro, but due to it's minimalist nature, it's more stable OOTB than, say, Red Hat.

. Some people like to compile their programs instead of using some packaging tools.

If I wanted to do that, Gentoo gives me far more flexibility while still being easy to use.

Complete control!

Debian, Gentoo, and the BSDs give you complete control, while also being easy to use and having a large variety of software available at a single command (or otherwise close by) without having to deal with dependancies.

! You know nothing about Slackware and you best shut it up when you insult such a fine distro.]

I used Slackware for 3 years. I know my way around the distro, and I know it's strengths and weaknesses.

Bottom line: Bill Gates wannabe, wants Linux to hold his hand. You are lame. Learn Linux, not Windows.

Being intuitive and holding your hand are not the same thing. You would do well to learn the difference between the two.

Oh, and I already know how to run Linux.

[jonts_matrix]

wher wud i get these frm>?
wwwlinuxiso.org?
or sumother resource u guyz suggezt?

[z0mbix]

Originally posted by jonts_matrix
wher wud i get these frm>?
wwwlinuxiso.org?
or sumother resource u guyz suggezt?

First of all, you need Debian, no matter what anyone else tells you, Debian is good for you. Secondly, you can get most distro's iso images by going to their website and looking at their mirrors that are near you. But you can also get them from linuxiso.org

[ssjf]

Originally posted by junopr
Maybe if you installed bash or zsh onto the windows you would be able to do it.

You can install bash on a windows machine? Cool! [goes off to do a G.C/L search.]

[ShieldWolf]

Try Knoppix or Gentoo Live! for a run-on-cd distro that won't make any changes to your hard-drive, or Demo Linux that will allow you to make an "anchor" that will save your settings and improve performance.

You need to be aware that there are currently problems with writing to an NTFS partition, so unless you have a FAT partition on that W2K machine, you may not want to do this, but set up a dual-boot system instead.

[alsius]

but are gentoo, knoppix, and debian user friendly? keep in mind i have never even been on a linux system before. i wanna learn linux, but i don;t wanna start in the dark. is there any sight that has good distro reviews?

[dcfxq]

For the past few weeks I have been dabbling w/one disk distros like Knoppix and SuSe 8.1 Live Eval to get a feel for Linux. I decided since I had an absolute need short term to maintain WinXP I choose to purchase and install Xandros.

I loaded and installed the single CD this morning and including partitioning of my hd and creating a boot/rescue disk it took 38 minutes. No problems with any hardware and have only to load drivers and I'll be able to use my LinkSys WUSB11 wireless box.

It may be a simplistic distro to experienced users but for a Linux newb as I am it was painless!

Was it worth $99.00? For me definitely yes because I have Crossover. WinModem and a susbset of Partition magic built in to the distro. I could be a very efeective means for other newbs using XP to get their feet wet in Linux.

[sharth]

Knoppix is extreamly user friendly once you figure out how to use KDE. No install needed. Most of the distro that pepole recommend are more than one cd (red hat and mandrake are I believe), So, thats about the only reason i am suggesting debian and gentoo. Debian isin't too hard as long as you read the faqs. There is a nice installer on debianplanet i think.

[Wibble]

Knoppix is very sweet. I've lent my CD out to 3 or 4 people, just to give them a taste of what linux is like. Not tried to install it, but it is supposed to be possible.

[Sebino]

linux is linux
:D

[n0dez]

Go to www.redhat.com
The RH guys have got nice docs at their Website. Don't download it form ftp.redhat.com Choose a mirror. It will go faster ;)

n0dez

http://www.n0dez.com/

[ShieldWolf]

Knoppix is about as userfriendly as Linux gets. I suppose that you could make an even more userfriendly distro, but at the cost of configurability.

I've been burning copies of Knoppix and giving them away to friends who've expressed an interest in Linux, but aren't ready to give up Windows, or go to the trouble of dual-booting.

As a matter of fact, Knoppix is what I'm using right now on one of the Dell Optiplex GX150's at work that normally runs W2K. It recognizes all the hardware, and automatically sets up the ethernet card to work with our lan.

As far as the HD install, go HERE (http://www.freenet.org.nz/misc/knoppix-install.html) , for easy to follow instructions.

The only complaint I have, and its a very minor one, is that Knoppix doesn't include all of the icons and wallpapers that a standard distro would, but considering the amount of programs that they manage to fit on one CD, I can overlook that. Besides, if you do a HD install, you can download all the eyecandy you want.

[Shawn Curry]

I'm on RedHat right now but I want to try to move up to a Debian. Major differences? I know about apt-get. But I read something about the way there built - something about "ports"?

I want to learn my way around the kernel - probably do a minimal install and build my way up.

Also, is Gentoo like Debian? Anyone use that?

[orangedi]

gentoo is debian based whatever that means... it is a long install but not impossible. maybe even fun. you build the kernel with instructions and it has something like apt-get only better. if you've got a night or an afternoon to kill you will love it, and learn a ton

[Mnemonic]

Isn't Libranet Debian based?

[2damncommon]

If you a familar with Red Hat you should be dual booting other distros until you know you want to use them.
If you are asking, it is NOT time for a new distro.
Good Luck

[Thorin]

Originally posted by orangedi
gentoo is debian based

Gentoo is Debian based? The only thing they have in common is automatic dependency resolving with their packaging tools. APT and Portage (emerge) are very different, APT downloads pre-compiled binary packages for the lowest common denominator systems (i386) and configures them. Emerge downloads source packages and compiles them for you (much faster than Debian).

Shawn Curry, if you're feeling confident, give Debian a try. The worst thing that can happen is the need for a RH reinstall, which isn't too hard.

I'm still using Debian, but I'm going to give LFS a try in a week or so.

[Dun'kalis]

Gentoo is NOT Debian-based. It is fast-growing and bleeding-edge.

Ports are a BSD thing. They build all software from scratch, like Gentoo, only differently.

[bosox79]

Originally posted by Shawn Curry
I'm on RedHat right now but I want to try to move up to a Debian. Major differences? I know about apt-get. But I read something about the way there built - something about "ports"?

I want to learn my way around the kernel - probably do a minimal install and build my way up.

Also, is Gentoo like Debian? Anyone use that?

If ya wanna give Debian a try I would print this out http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2016 & follow the direction's it helped me when I tried a Debian woody 3.0 install. Debian takes a lot more work to get up & running (compared to RH 8.0) you will most likely need to recompile your kernel & manually edit your xfree86 & other config files. like 2damncommon said, you may want to dual boot RH 8.0 & Debian until you can get Debian configured to your liking. Good Luck with Debian & have fun:cool:. if you have newer hardware I'e a PIII or above you may want to run the install with the 2.4 kernel (CD # 5) rather then the default 2.2 kernel from CD #1 You will need both CD #1 & #5 for the install with the 2.4 kernel:D

[Shawn Curry]

Yep, I'm cool with the dual boot. I have a physical switch to switch between 2 HDs even if I have trouble with that.

I was kind of disappointed with the RedHat install actually.. I spend hours tracking down all the finite specs for my machine (VRR & HRR, manufacturers, etc) and I didnt need any of it.

So how much compiling is involved? I have some books and I'm getting around pretty good, I had planned to try and recompile my kernel soon.

[think_penguin]

Just to clarify Gentoo IS NOT debian based. Gentoo as some people have mentioned compiles all software after downloading it. Also when you intsall gentoo you have to compile the kernel you are using so to get maximum optimization.

You are most likely going to screw up your first gentoo intstall (I am not trying to insult your skills, its just most people do). However Gentoo is a very powerful distro but is hard to install.

[think_penguin]

Sorry I was writing my post as you posted (so it doesnt answer ANY of your recent questions).

My friend said it took him something like 10 hours to get gentoo up and running. Dont know if that accurate of most people or what. But its a number.
Hope that helps.

[bosox79]

Originally posted by Shawn Curry
Yep, I'm cool with the dual boot. I have a physical switch to switch between 2 HDs even if I have trouble with that.

I was kind of disappointed with the RedHat install actually.. I spend hours tracking down all the finite specs for my machine (VRR & HRR, manufacturers, etc) and I didnt need any of it.

So how much compiling is involved? I have some books and I'm getting around pretty good, I had planned to try and recompile my kernel soon.

QUOTE] So how much compiling is involved?[/QUOTE]

with Gentoo or Debian?

when you install Gentoo everything is compiled from source code & is optimized for your hardware I would check out http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml to see what gentoo is all about.

as far as how long it takes to setup Gentoo, that depends on what stage you install from & how fast your system is the newer your hardware/processor is the faster the compile will go but it still takes quite awhile! check out http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-install.xml

the install doc's for more info I posted the link to x86 if you are using a different architecture check out the appropriate install doc.

AS for how much compiling you will need to do with debian this is usually very minimal if you don't mind using precompiled deb packages the are usually optimized for i386 architecture's

The major compiling you do with Debian will most likely be your kernel :D

[Shawn Curry]

So is Debian easier then? Or do you have to build both from scratch?

[Shawn Curry]

Sorry must have posted just as you were posting. That's what I really wanted to know...

[orangedi]

ok ok i get it. it is not debian based.. i was thinking of another distro.
the install for gentoo is not that difficult. just follow instructions. in fact there was a recent study in which animal psychologist trained 2 year old chipmanzees to install it in less than six hours. it's true!
don't believe me? check out this link...

scientists train chimps to install gentoo.html (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-install.xml)

[Shawn Curry]

Heh they taught chimps to do all that? :D

[z0mbix]

I see the time has come for you to start using Debian. Don't look back :)

[hkctr]

If you want to try Debian. I would strongly urge you to try the Knoppix bootable CD. It is all Debian and allows you to play around with it without worrying about ruining your current installation. If you like it, you can do a HD install of Knoppix or you can install Debian from scratch with Debian CD's.

I made the switch to Debian from RH myself. The Knoppix CD convinced me it was possible. I installed from scratch and installed all the packages one at a time. Whenever I got stuck, I would boot up the Knoppix CD and check out the config files to get hints on how to solve my problems. It is also the quickest and easiest way to test out lots of linux software to find out it you want/need it or not without actually installing it. Over 2GB of software compressed onto one CD. Amazing piece of work and well worth the download time.

[ehawk]

Perhaps you should look into RH's apt-get functionality now, as well as up2date. I haven't used them, but the reason you cited for trying Debian was apt-get.

[The Ennead IX]

I'd go with the dual boot option too. Currently i'm dual booting mdk with Debian so I would be recommending the RH/Debian option. That said, the reason i'm putting Debian forward is my lack of knowledge with Gentoo so can any Gentoo users advise on its "bleeding edge" status? Be aware that Debian runs either the 2.2 series or 2.4.18 kernels so if you're hardware is bleeding edge and not supported by that then you could be looking at a few recompiles there. Either way, i'm sure you'll be happy with the choice of either Gentoo or Debian, it's the best move i've made.

[clw54]

It seems like this is a major consideration for a newbie when deciding on a distro to buy. I know SuSE Pro has good manuals, but what about Mandrake or RedHat? Thanks.

[with.a.twist]

You've opened a can of worms here... after about 900 posts to this thread you'll find out that you are spending more time reading 900 posts than acutally deciding whats best for you.

Good luck! (my suggestion is to stay away from paper. Go with the one that has a searchable on-line manual!).

[je_fro]

As a newbie, I've found Rute User's tutorial to be more useful than any manual. If you go with a newbie distro (RH8 or Mandrake) you won't need the manual too much. Read Rute User!!

http://wwwacs.gantep.edu.tr/linux/rute/

[bosox79]

Originally posted by clw54
It seems like this is a major consideration for a newbie when deciding on a distro to buy. I know SuSE Pro has good manuals, but what about Mandrake or RedHat? Thanks.

Both distro's come with pretty good printed documentation check out this link http://www.mandrakestore.com/mdkinc/index.php?MDK_STORE_REFERER=&LANG=en&STATE_ID=US&UID=&CUSTID=&origin_=
to read about mandrakes offerings

& this one http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ for RH 8.0

in my personal experience MD 9.0 seems to work better (at least out of the box) as a home OS) Mandrake includes full multimedia support & the ability to mount & read from NTFS drives they even have a gaming edition.

RH 8.0 on the other hand is more geared towards a corporate desktop user. the things I mentioned above are not included right out of the box.

Both distro's can be used as a viable home OS & again the printed documentation is pretty good with both :) I have been using MD 9.0 for about a month now without any issues. ( I think I may install RH 8.0 & get it up & running with NTFS read support & full multimedia support for fun:)

This just my opnion I hope it is helpful :)

[janet loves bill]

Originally posted by je_fro
As a newbie, I've found Rute User's tutorial to be more useful than any manual. If you go with a newbie distro (RH8 or Mandrake) you won't need the manual too much. Read Rute User!!

http://wwwacs.gantep.edu.tr/linux/rute/

Mega Ditto's on Rute User.

[AudioSlave]

i have a third pc that's just sitting around that i would like to try Linux on.

specs: (hold laughter until the end please)

p166
2.4gb hdd

bleh bleh bleh bleh...

just want to surf and play some mp3's on it, nothing big. would mandrake do the trick? do i have enuff hdd space for mandrake? thanks for any replies.

[ECartman]

lol. there are so many of these threads in this forum. try running a search.

most of them just say that there is no all around great distro, you just have to play around with a few and find one that fits your needs. Mandrake is easy to use and install, but i don't think it will run well given the specs you gave.

[Dark Ninja]

Whoa...nice...:D

[AudioSlave]

Originally posted by ECartman
Mandrake is easy to use and install, but i don't think it will run well given the specs you gave.

that's kinda what i wanted to know, was about my specs. i did do a search but didn't see anything with specs like mine :/

i'm kinda surprised that it might not run well because i have win2k pro on it right now and it runs fine. anybody else have any input??

[je_fro]

I just put a minimal Debian (compact floppies - network install) on a 1.2 Gb 64 Mb RAM machine I got for $15. Seems ok, just don't install KDE !!!

[ECartman]

Originally posted by AudioSlave
that's kinda what i wanted to know, was about my specs. i did do a search but didn't see anything with specs like mine :/

i'm kinda surprised that it might not run well because i have win2k pro on it right now and it runs fine. anybody else have any input??

well, i have tryed running it on my K6-2 400MHz (look at my sig for complete specs) and never got it to run decently on that one. but perhaps with a little bit of work it could run perfectly. But, I know you won't be able to run KDE or Gnome unless you have a LOT of time to wait for things to load.

[TreeHugger]

I found the redhat intro worthwhile.

[NecroNomiCon]

Just thought y'all might like to see this. I may actually go out and PAY for an OS!!! (Does Microsloth know how to write-protect CDs? Or do they simply do the online register thing? What if I choose not to go online? LMAO).

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2302

Xandros may start to rule the roost for newbies. Hmmm....

[CyPHer_138]

I've been playing with FreeBSD 4.7 and Drake 9. I like drake and learn alot from BSD about *nix in general. Lately I'm curious about Suse ever since I read that Linus is rumored to use it as his home desktop. Than again mabey it's just propaganda.
I know one thing... I trust Bell Labs over a single programmer in his garage anyday.
No offense dude.
I read a great quote once; "Unix is user friendly...it's just pickey about its friends."
Browser wise check out the new Phoenix
http://mozilla.org/
It's fast as hell.:D

[Fryguy8]

The best linux is linuxfromscratch

Build it exactly how you want, totally optimized for your computer

Obviously not for newbies

Mandrake, redhat, suse are all great, but if you get too hung up on the newb distros you won't learn real linux.

I bought mandrake from the store, installed it in about 5 minutes, noticed all the automated gui stuff, and returned it to the store, on the way out starting to download the debian isos. I had mandrake on my system for such a small amount of time I don't even count it. My thought was if I wanted to learn linux and it's "hardcoreness" to go with a "hardcore" distro right off the bat. Having a windows box by my side with IRC open, I step by step built a linux system, straight from a shell (installing x was one of the last things I did, I had upgraded from stable to testing before I installed x). And eventually got to the point where I turned off the windows machine because I had xchat running on the debian box.

Debian is good because it's pretty hard to break, and the easiest distro to maintain. If you've got some patience to take the time to install it properly, it is a good first linux.

I'm on to bigger and better things though, I can't wait to reboot to LFS (I've had it done for a day now, but I'm preparing for x install etc, so I can boot to it, and go bing bang boom and be in x quickly).

[Saptech]

Has anybody tried/seen this new distro called YOS (http://www.yoper.com/YOS.txt). YOS stand for Your Operating System, is from a New Zealand company.

That link takes you to the press release and explains more about it. A friend gave me a copy of the Ydesktop ISO, so I will install it sometime soon. :)

It looks interesting. But this is a release candidate so it may have bugs. I also see it on Distrowatch.com (http://www.distrowatch.com)!

[bluesky]

I read the doc from the above link. It sounds good for desktop linux: 200 selected packages, new kernel 2.4.20 and KDE 3.1 and mozilla 1.2.1. WOW!

YOS is probably not optimized for used as servers since the 200 packages is pretty large; for server, only around 100 or less is needed. :p

[Saptech]

Well they have server OS separately...it suppose to support most major package managers also...deb, .tgz, and .rpm...it have apt-get too!

You also can get the Live CD and run it from disc, like Knoppix!

[JP83]

Sounds good:
The CD is optimized for i686 and higher X86 CPU's

[sarah31]

Originally posted by bluesky
I read the doc from the above link. It sounds good for desktop linux: 200 selected packages, new kernel 2.4.20 and KDE 3.1 and mozilla 1.2.1. WOW!

YOS is probably not optimized for used as servers since the 200 packages is pretty large; for server, only around 100 or less is needed. :p


well i guess this is impressive but arch linux already has this kinda stuff, well except for the KDE 3.1, and gcc 3.2.1 and the newest glibc 2.3.1. we have no need for other package managers when we have pacman:p

[pwandkwa]

I've found extreme tech's web-site very helpful. I have SuSE 8.0 myself. Was confused by all the wonderful things they had to say about it, but only gave it a 7/10 rating compared to others they rated higher with less praise.

I had already purchased SuSE after much research on my own.

Purchasing the OS with a book is the best way to go. I can't get Red Hat 7.2 to install. Purchased it for an on-line class I was taking.

Surf and learn, then decide.

[n0dez]

Red Hat Linux isn't hard to install and use.
Lindows is not a true Linux distro. Is just something based on Linux; it has been modified a lot. It's a commercial product. All they care about is that they gotta sell it like Windoze. Who's running a Web/FTP/Mail server under Lindows? I guess it's better than Windoze but I'm not sure. Anyway I prefer RedHat.

n0dez

[Saptech]

Sarah31, I installed ArchLinux this past weekend and again It will not boot for me. I keep getting Kernel panic errors, the be sure to add "root=" line, I don't know why I get that . I've checked and doubled checked to make sure that root= the correct partition and it does.

So I dumped AL and put the YOS distro in its partition and I'm having no problems.

I posted the problem in AL forum if you want to check it out! :rolleyes:

[SabZero]

<the deal>
In our company we use a Server for connecting to broadband internet (cable for now). It runs on a Intel platform with Windows 2000 Prof. We will still need Windows for our webserver, because we use the dBase database engine (don't ask why). We use the Jana server as a proxy.

So my plan is to set up a better proxy/firewall than we have now. Some days ago some script-kid could crash our server.

<what I have>
I have a spare Pentium Pro200 box standing around getting very dusty. I think I still can manage to get a bit more than 128Mb of RAM for it. It has two harddisks (3 Gb in full), a CD-ROM and floppy (just in case). It also has some leftovers, a 5,25" floppy and a tape-drive for backups. It has a Matrox graphics card and an Orchid 3D accelerator (one of the Vodoo1 reference cards).

<what we need>
We need several proxies (including Netmeeting, please tell it works), firewall function and being our mail-relayer. The webserver will not be on the same machine. Will I need reverse proxy for that? Or will it just act a a router?
<oh yeah>
And it would be nice if it was easy to maintain from another PC inside the LAN as the box wouldn't have the right to a monitor and keyboard.

<the question>
So what Linux/*nix would I use? I am interested in the BSD-distros, but any opinion is appreciated. Best is free for commercial use of course :D

Thanks!

[irish_rover]

On the BSD side OpenBSD is claimed as the best for this sort of thing.

I think there are quite a few decent Linux distros for this kind of job. Here are a couple of places to look.

http://distrowatch.com/firewalls.php?1

http://www.ipcop.org/

[MonkeyIslander]

I was wondering if there were any Asian language based distros out there...
because I deal with both Korean and Japanese using my windows box right now and I was wondering how Linux matches up (or if it goes beyond)...

[emus]

As far as I know, Turbolinux is used a lot in East Asia,

try the following link too, it lists distros by language
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Linux/Distributions/International/?tc=1

hope this helps,


emus

[think_penguin]

MDK 8.1 has an option to change the language to Japanese, Chinese (and quite a few other languages). As far as I know a lot of pre packaged distros come with optional other language support.
Might just want into look into that.

[dkeav]

heres one (http://www.distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=chinese2000)

heres 2 (http://www.distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=omoikane)



and thats three (http://www.distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=wow)

[bskahan]

http://www.mlb.co.jp/

[JohnT]

http://www.redflag-linux.com/eindex.html

[Tempus77]

my advice is: if u really nuts about linux, and have been so hung up on MS windows all your life, go for a distro like lycoris or xandros first to ease your transition over to linux.....spend some time fiddling with either of the 2 distros, then switch to Redhat or Mandrake...............once more proficient, move on to debian or gentoo.

just my 2 cents worth.

cheers.

[czgu]

Originally posted by MonkeyIslander
I was wondering if there were any Asian language based distros out there...
because I deal with both Korean and Japanese using my windows box right now and I was wondering how Linux matches up (or if it goes beyond)...
No. But you can install Japanese, Korean, Chinese language packages just like Win2k and Win XP. After you install these language packages, you'll be able to read in these languages. If you wanna write in (input) these languages you need select one (Chinese, for example) before you login. But you'll see a non-English menu, icon name ....

[dkeav]

No. But you can install Japan...

you didnt click on any of the links above did you? chinese 2000 is, omoikane is japanese, and wow linux is korean. so the answer is yes

[czgu]

[i]......because I deal with both Korean and Japanese using my windows box right now and I was wondering how Linux matches up (or if it goes beyond)... [/B]
Big difference btw winowds (2k or xp) and Linux is that windows doesn't need to change language. you can use English version of windows to type in Korean, Japanese, Chinese. In Linux you have to select a language before you login. As you login you'll see your menu and most of other things are in the language you selected. If you login as English language, you can read in Korean, Japanese, Chinese websites, but you can't type in these languages.

[roccoman]

I'm a new user to Linux, but I'm a quick learner. I'm currently running RedHat 8.0, which I do like very much but it looks to much like..windows. What distro should I get for dynamic clean look, with cool features and cool looking features; More powerful and stable, with better hardware detection and not too hard of installation.. One that could play games(better then redhat), and would be good for a web-designer. I would appreciate any opinions, thanks.

I know your out there Miracle Linux ^^ :)

[janet loves bill]

Anything but Debian, or Gentoo. I suggest Caldera open linux Workstation.!!

[coolwebs]

I just recently purchased a refurbed computer so that I can dedicate Linux to it, no other OS's.

Heres my setup:

IBM 233MHZ MMX
5GB hard drive
64MB of RAM
24X CD ROM
LINKSYS Ethernet LAN card
2 USB ports
ISA Slots
PCI Slots
PS2 Ports
Printer Port

I currently have RedHat vers. 6, 7.3 and 8, as well as Mandrake 8.2, and 9.
Based on my Computers basic hardware which distro will be the best configuration?

[JohnT]

I'd go with the RH 6.0. Fairly certain it will work with all your hardware plus it was one of the better versions IMHO. I don't think you would be satisfied with the MDK versions you have as they are more resource intensive and with your current set-up wouldn't run optimally.

[scott_R]

If it's a test box, give all of them a shot. I'd start with the newer versions of both distros, and work backwords, if necessary. Give them a couple days of playtime. As for which is the best, anyone that recommends a "best" distro is assuming that everyone is like them. (I've been guilty of this in the past, of course.) The truth is, distros are like cars. A Honda may suit you, personally, I prefer a hopped up Mustang that's loud and wastes gas. Also, distros may depend on your situation. Using the same example, I might like the Mustang for cruising on friday night, but I might want to drive a Ford Escort to work to save on gas. It's all a matter of taste and need, and only you can be the judge of that.

Try out a few "free" downloads or have a friend download them, and play with them all. If it's your business stuff, you'll probably want to go with a well known distro. If it's a toy, and you have a deathwish, something handrolled may appeal to you, despite the extra pain involved.

[ShieldWolf]

If at all possible, put some more ram in that sucker. Ram is cheap and will make a BIG difference in how that box runs. Check www.pricewatch.com for some good prices.

Then try every single one of those distro's. I suggest keeping each one for at least a week, longer if you like it.

[2damncommon]

Ummm,
Stick with Red Hat long enough to learn how to configure Linux the way you like and try other distros on a dual/multiboot. Switch when you know you like another better.
If you want to try something different try the Blackbox window manager instead of Gnome (?), configure it yourself (you can gleen goodies from a screenshots thread).
Really, better than 80% of 'Linux' can be done on any distro.
Good Luck

[ehawk]

I have the same amount of RAM, and it seems to run 7.0 pretty well....slow to startup star office...

[sharth]

You should be able to (instead of wasting cd-rs) copy the cd image to a 650mb partition (using dd or rawrite or the like) and then simply run it there for the install. Or you could take the easy route and go buy some cd-rws :)

However, your list didn't include cd-burners so perhaps, unless you are going to buy them, that might be a viable option.

[sharth]

Debian != hardware detection.

[scott_R]

>Debian != hardware detection.

Um, depends on your situation. Debian hardware detection hasn't been a problem for me so far, though. Still, I would agree that debian is probably not ready for newbies yet, or vice versa.

[coolwebs]

I curently have a dual boot Win2000 Pro/RedHat 8 computer that runs very well with both. Add to that i also have Knoppix Linux which runs totally from the CDRom how cool..... The new box is totally dedicated to Linux and nothing else, mainly because I seemingly have to try every distro i can get my hands on. My goal is to free up my WIN2000 pro box so my wife can surf the web, and e-mail her friends and family. I have a 3 Computer network that is running behind a Linksys Cable/DSL router, and my new IBM box will make 4 computers on my Network...

WIN2000Pro/RedHat 8 box:

Celeron 466MHZ
DVD/CD Rom
Sony CD/CRW drive
40 GB Hard Drive
256 MEG RAM
NVidia Gforce 4 Video Card
Linksys EtherFast LAN Card

[rammstein69er]

I think Redhat 8 and Mandrake 9 are good for people who don't want to learn too much but still want to use linux, if you don't like the look then just get a different theme for Gnome 2, u can easily make it look nothing like windows!!!

All distros of linux can pretty much run the same programs so whatever you need you can probably find for whatever distro you choose.......

[think_penguin]

It really depends on what your trying to do with this box. Ive got RH 7.3 on a pentium 233, but no x installed because thats the only thing that really eats up resources (basiclly ram which the box has very little of). If your going to be using a gui you might want to try something out like blackbox, openbox, fluxbox (if you havent worked with them before). they are very low on the resource consuming side. Also if your planning on using a gui definitly go with RH 7.3 or 6 since those will eat up the smallest amount of system resources.

Hope that helps.

[jungberg]

Used slackware from scratch, FreeBSD, Debian, Redhat, and of course, Caldera.

Likes: Easy install, good default configurations KDE, Excellent Webmin utility, as well as upgrade paths for when you have money to spend.

They have decent support and they haven't changed very much from the original slackware standards.

FreeBSD is also good for stable servers and they have good support as well.

Redhat makes a good general desktop distribution.

Debian rules in upgrade patches.

Overall, Caldera still gets my vote.

[Prophet621]

I'm still a linux newbie, despite playing with several distros over the last three years. With lack of the type of software I use in windows and my often failed attempts at software installation, linux doen't stay on my drive for more than a few weeks, however I keep comming back and it's always a little better. :) It really has come a long way in three years.

Currently I'm running Mandrake 9 on my notebook, dual boot with win XP pro. It found everything durring install and even mounted my NTFS partitions. (thank you thank you thank you) Have a sound problem that I had fixed but it's back again.. other than that the OS runs fine (minor glitches.. no big deal). The problem is package installation. I hate rpm's now more than I did before, constantly getting bad signature errors and such.

I had tried Libranet 2.0 in the past and for the most part I loved it, except for the fighting to get my NTFS partitions mounted and the cd wasn't automounted. I really really loved apt-get. I know that there is a version for mandrake but I can't seem to get it to work very well, and still get those same bad signature errors and very few things install and work correctly. (Why can't they offer dependencies with the package?) URPMI seems a bit limited to me, and.. don't laugh.. in three years of playing with Linux I have yet to get a tarball past 'make install' or 'make' even following the direction EXACTLY. I have never gotten a tarball to install.... ever. I don't know why.. something always goes wrong.

So, what I'm looking for is a distro that will pick up notebook hardware (sony vaio), fairly easy configuration (I am still a newbie, I don't mind setting it up but don't want to spend hours on every little thing) something that will dual boot with XP NTFS partitions (Libranet didn't like it, had to boot from floppy.. don't have floppy on this notebook). Easier package installation is a must. No more dependencie hell.

I'm looking for users opinions, not the opinion the distro has of themselves (looking at their sites). I looked at gentoo but that is out of the question, I don't have 2-4 days to set it up. (read about it in a post here on the forum) and I'm sure I would FUBAR something somewhere. So a distro that has apt-get is what I'm left with I assume. Red hat, (rpms again...ugh) debian (heard great things about it but too much to set up and is behind on the newer features) Libranet (read above) and that's all I know of. Any suggestions?

I would really appreciate anyones help.

[PerfectBlue]

Mandrake 9 should be working fine.

Since you said, gentoo, debian and RH are out from your consideration, maybe SuSe? or Xandros (i think it's the easiest distro but need to pay $99 for it). Or Lindows (i never like it)?

i'm also a newbie but i prefer to twist and turn something in linux or else i won't learn anything, just my opinion :D

[Gertrude]

I got a old pentium 1 dell. and in the options in the bios all there is to select for a boot device is hard disk and floppy.. I have enough storage to install a larger distro.. I wanted to install debian on it. but I can only boot from a floppy.. is there any there any way that I could get one of the distros on a floppy then upgrade it from there? or is there a debian that comes on a floppy then i could just apt-get everything else I want?

[Prophet621]

I don't mind setting things up and making configurations.. even though I don't remember what I did the next day. :) I just don't like to spend hours on each and every thing I need to configure, and I would like it to work, then if something goes wrong I have to do it again and I can't remember what I did. Personally, I would rather have it already configured and then see if I can undo it and fix it again. If I can't and I completely FUBAR it I can reinstall if necessary and it's working again. :)

My biggest concern however is app installation. I really really hate rpms and tarballs. As I said, they never seem to work properly for me, granted, that is undoubtedly lots of error on my part, still annoying as all hell. RPM..ok, I'm not entirely sure which ones I need, I don't know this bad signature thing and why all of them have it.. probably my fault, still would hate them even if they worked.. and dependencies really really suck. Run around on the net trying to download a couple dependencies it needs, try to install one and it tells you you need another, go get that one try to install it and get the message that you need the first one installed before you can install this one.... WTF? (happens often) Tarballs on the other hand, I have no clue why they won't work for me, I always follow the direction to the letter.. and still nothing.

Which is why I want to go back to something like apt-get.. otherwise nothing will ever get installed except the software I chose durring installation... boring as all hell.

Well, does anyone have an opinion about Red hats apt-get?

[sonictooth]

most cds will have a bootdisk to make on them, then you boot of that and they load the cd, look on your cd for a bootdisk image, and then use rawrite or something to write it to a floopy

[lito]

I am not sure that this is what you are looking for, but try:

http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst

If you have a way to download and write several floppies, you can use them to boot up and get the rest of debian online.

[NecroNomiCon]

I never thought to do that type of thing. As a proclaimed "techno-weenie" (proclaimed by my co-workers, that is), perhaps I should do the same thing.
My only problem is this: I've never used Irc (preparing for the stoning of my life!!). Any tips on where to get it, where to go to use it, how it works, etc? Please, keep the laughter to a minimum...my feelings get hurt very easily!! ;)

[tripey]

i cannot say enough good things about Xandros. it detected ALL my hardware correctly, mounted my NTFS partitions (dual boot), and since its based on Debian you can use apt for updates and installing new applications (games! heh). theres something to be said for ease of use but more importantly EASE OF SETUP!
sure there are tons of linux fans that enjoy the DYI aspect of most distros, but for me Xandros fits the bill. my idea of fun isn't friday night sitting on the command line.
as for the $99, i see it as an investment in the future. if Xandros could do all that on their first official release, i can only imagine what the future will bring. in total, i've spent 10 times that amount on apps and games that completely sucked and i think $99 for Xandros is a bargain!

oh yeah, i didn't mention the greatness of the Xandros File Manager. all my media files (divx, mp3, ogg, vobs) that are located on my windows partitions are completely accessible, copyable to my linux partition, and worked right from the initial install of Xandros. not to mention DVDs after a bit of tweaking. also, 3d acceleration worked straight off the line. in all i figure i must have saved at least 10 hours in research and implementation of fixes (read: to make it work enough to be comfotable to use).

[phlipant]

irc is part of mozilla - lower left near your mail icon with the symbol cZ

[solarverb]

I like Red Hat 8.

I thought the install was simple enough. I like it as a beginner distro. I dual-boot XP, and I thought getting that to work was very easy. Once I shut down some services and hardened it with Bastille-Linux I went from ultra-paranoid to just paranoid.

I tried Mandrake after I had tried RH8 and didn't like it. Just my opinion though. I actually screwed up the install. Sad, eh?

When I installed RH8 the last time I made a /mnt/lfs partition (5gig) to try out Linux From Scratch. That is fun. Good learning experience too. It gave me some insight into linux distributions.

I would like to try Debian and Gentoo next. When I start to feel confident at the command line I just might venture into the FreeBSD world. I like their mascot better. :D

[Marcel2008]

Wich linux is best???

That question is incorrect.

Do you mean:
- the best distro?
- the best kernel?
- the best userland tools?

Red Hat 8 is not the same as Linux.
You are comparing two different things.

[Grell]

Not really so much a reply as another question I guess. I've been interested in Linux for a while, but for whatever reason haven't been able to take the plunge and actually do anything about it. Well, I don't really have any excuses anymore and I finally got a handme down computer that I don't particularly need and I thought this would be a good opportunity to try out Linux a bit.

My thought is to go with one of the more minimalist distros and then work up from there, considering my system that I'll be playing around with.

The system I'll have available for use will be a Pentium 90, 32MB RAM, 850MB HDD, Cirrus logic 1 or 2 MB video card (Its some old beater Packard Bell PC that my parents owned for like 7 years).

So I was looking through the distro list on linux.org and came across several smaller distros that seemed to be appropriate. They are as follows:

Peanut Linux
Vector Linux
Smoothwall

Some others seemed to fit the bill, but I wasn't sure. I thought I'd turn here for advice in regards to that sort of thing.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

[geekgirl21]

I got some info on Peanut Linux and Vector Linux.

From a usenet email (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Peanut+Linux%22+group:alt.os.linux.sla ckware&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a4hmoa%24i3c%241%40iruka.swcp.com&rnum=3):
"[Vector Linux] runs the
simple/lite/fast IceWm window manager instead of the Gnome or KDE GUI
environments that other distros have, but then I wouldn't try to run KDE on
32MBs of RAM anyway. Another, more up-to-date but similar distro is one
called "Peanut Linux".

The problem with both of these distros are that for learning the OS, they
both lack a lot of the piles of documentation on GNU/Linux, and also have NO
program development tools that a full sized distribution will have. They
will also lack some basic programs and utilities that a lot of textbooks on
GNU/Linux might refer to. They are stripped down yet very functional
distributions that are strictly meant as an end-user OS for people to run
applications on."

So, in short, these two would be basic Linux distros. You won't be able to do much on them, but If that's what you want, get Peanut Linux, since it's more updated.

Smoothwall (http://www.smoothwall.org/about/) is for firewalls only, probably not what you want.

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by Marcel2008
That question is incorrect.

Do you mean:
- the best distro?
- the best kernel?
- the best userland tools?

Red Hat 8 is not the same as Linux.
You are comparing two different things.
Do you, after 8 pages about this question (!!!) still need to ask that question? I think that's quite useless ;)

[Grell]

Okay, just as a point of clarification. I wasn't sure that my computer could handle a more "complete" (bad choice of words, but closes I can come to get my point across) distro of Linux. I mean, I was looking at SuSe today in a store and saw the system reqs and was sort of blown away. I know that Linux is vaunted as being able to be used on old machines, but right now as much of a crutch as it is I wanted to also have something with a GUI to fall back on while I learned Linux. I don't particularly want a minimalist but I know I can't stand the reqs for the newer distros. Are there any Linux distros at all, that will provide a good learning environment yet still work within my specs? To recap, just for ease:

Pentium 90
32 MB of RAM
850 MB HD
Really crappy 2MB Video Card that came with the computer (Cirrus Logic)
4x cdrom

Thanks again for your time, and for your quick reply geekgirl

[geekgirl21]

Originally posted by Grell
Are there any Linux distros at all, that will provide a good learning environment yet still work within my specs? To recap, just for ease:

Pentium 90
32 MB of RAM
850 MB HD
Really crappy 2MB Video Card that came with the computer (Cirrus Logic)
4x cdrom

Thanks again for your time, and for your quick reply geekgirl

No problem.

Read. (http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/faqomatic/cache/49.html)

EDIT: Wow, I originally posted this 14 minutes after you asked. Good timing, eh?

[ehawk]

I think either of these would run ok with your specs. The older, free version of Libranet would also be ok. Mandrake and RH are both easy to install. I have heard that Libranet is, too.

[DredNort]

In my opinion the best distro of linux depends on a: your hardware and b: what sort of person you are.
a- Most distros have versions that suit hardware back to 486.
b- Do you want to put your toe in to test the water, then wade in from the shallow end? Then Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE and Caldera are for you.
If you like to jump in the deep end after asking those in the water how cold and deep it is, then Debian and Slackware are your best options.

I've done a bit with an older version of Caldera, and a bit on Mandrake 7.2. I've just 'converted' over to Slackware.:) :)

I also recon that after you get a good system going, LinuxFromScratch would help learn the inner workings of the OS we all love so much.

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by DredNort
In my opinion the best distro of linux depends on a: your hardware and b: what sort of person you are.
You forgot c: the quality & maturity of the distro
that's very important too ;)

[DredNort]

Originally posted by Ludootje
You forgot c: the quality & maturity of the distro
that's very important too


Of course. Very good point!
:cool: :cool:

[beniro]

I've been jumping around from distro to distro since I started using Linux a couple of months ago. I used Mandrake 8.2, Redhat 8, Libranet 2 and Vector Linux 3. All were nice (especially Libranet), but I really think I've found one that I'll stick with for a while: Arch Linux.

It is still a little young (version 0.4 is out now), but it has a great package management system (pacman!) and creates a great base system to expand, which is just what I want.

It has a fairly easy install (although configuring X was a bastard, so I wouldn't recommend it as a first distro) and is all around great.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/

[jus]

Okay, hands down, the LFS journey is best
:cool:

Go to

www.linuxfromscratch.org

Its long and very difficult, but if you stick with it, you will learn that much is certain.

Anyway, I need sound, where'd those alsa source files go.....

[tagwosdz]

Which distrobutions automatically mount removable media (floppies, CD's)? How effective are these "supermounts"?

I used Redhat 6 in 1999, just now considering jumping back in. Looking for the right disrtro.

Tag

[akshunj]

Mandrake 9 came with supermount enabled, and I thought it was a mess. Everytime I looked across my Windows partition, my system took 40 or 50 seconds to scan EACH and EVERY piece of removeable media on my system. If that wasn't enough, when I would open a CD, the files and directories would begin to disappear! I ended up disabling it and now I mount stuff manually when I need it. If you're not into typing "mount" and "umount", both KDE and Gnome have a graphical mounter that makes the entire process only two painless mouse clicks.

Enlightenment, Windowmaker, and some of the other window managers all have graphical applets that make the process pretty quick too. But, I digress. If supermount is what you crave, I think it still has some kinks to work out. At least in Mandrake.

--Akshun J

[nextbillgates]

Gentoo also has supermount capability if you've compiled it into the kernel. I'm not sure about other distros.

[b52gundog]

If you're migrating from MS Windows to Linux cold turkey then I recommend the most user friendly option. Likely Red Hat since it's the most financed of all the Linux distributors.

Ultimately it may boil down to balancing cost over time. Debian may be one of the cheapest, but you may pay in hours of time with a high learning curve and trouble-shooting.

If you're technically inclined then try 'em all. Download SuSe, Debian, Caldera, Red Hat, etc... You could narrow down the 1 that makes the most sense for you (ie. HW compatibility, support, productivity uses, reliability, cost, etc...)

If you really want to nose-dive into the Linux arena then you may benefit from experiencing from all these different Linux's. Especially if it's a possible career path. -Good Luck!

P.S. I'm partial to Red Hat; using it since version 6.2 to the newest Red Hat 8.0. I've messed with Debian & couldn't really bond with it.

[b52gundog]

Going GUI on a Pentium 90 (older system); Eeuhw! It may work, but it will be very slow. Especially with a 2MB video card. Command line should work well though.

[minusime]

I'm in a similar situation as Grell, I've got a P120 with not a whole lot of good hardware inside.

Pentium 120
48mb RAM
5gig + 1.7gig HD
16mb vid (voodoo3)

I'm looking to get into Linux. I've downloaded one third of RedHat 8, and now reading this I'm hoping I haven't wasted my time downloading a 670mb file.

The questions are, can I fit RedHat on 1.7gigs? Will it support my voodoo?

I'm planning on reformatting this computer in the next few days (once I finish downloading RedHat) and installing Win98 on the 5gig drive so that my mom can still use it. I'll just be using the Linux install to test webpages (via Apache, of course) and run Perl scripts on. Also, just to familiarize myself with the OS. Not really daily use, I've got my other computer for that.

Any suggestions? Is RedHat right for me?

[b52gundog]

minusime,

I bought Red Hat 8.0 Pro.

According to the minimum system requirements on the packaging, it says:

Hard Disk Space:
---------------------
Personal Desktop - 1.5GB
Workstation - 2.0GB
Server - 1.3GB
Custom Minimum Install - 400MB

** Don't forget you need space for your data.

Memory:
------------
Minimum (Text-mode) - 64MB
Minimum (Graphical) - 128MB

Supports Voodoo3 & Voodoo5

It may work, but you may be tight on memory. Depends on how you install it.

[raevsky]

Hi,

While this is not THE proof of anything, it goes to show which version of linux most people choose.

I use Mandrake 9.0 (Dolphin) and it is BY FAR the best distro I have ever seen (and I have seen all the major ones).

Try it out :-)

[The Executioner]

Mandrake 9 is the most unproffesional pile of junk i've ever seen. It looks like a few 10 year olds put it together. It's the easiest to use Linux distro, i'll give it that much, but it is unstable, ugly and bloated. It looks more ugly than Windows 95 right after you install it.

Redhat 8 is far more professional looking, very stable, great to use, slick, fast and is not made by a company who is going to get bankrupt. It has the most support too out of all the Linux distros. You can use apt-get with it. What more do you f****** want? Mandrake is french trash.

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by The Executioner
Mandrake 9 is the most unproffesional pile of junk i've ever seen. It looks like a few 10 year olds put it together. It's the easiest to use Linux distro, i'll give it that much, but it is unstable, ugly and bloated. It looks more ugly than Windows 95 right after you install it.

Redhat 8 is far more professional looking, very stable, great to use, slick, fast and is not made by a company who is going to get bankrupt. It has the most support too out of all the Linux distros. You can use apt-get with it. What more do you f****** want? Mandrake is french trash.
apt-get works as well on RH as on mdk (read: not so well, it isn't made for it). it's ugly, unstable: true. bloated: no, nothing forces you to install everything.
RH8: what they did to KDE isn't professional - at all. it's just plain dumb, I don't understand how they could even think about that.
RH is btw less newbie-friendly then mdk (or suse, for that matter).

You can blame almost each distro for something they've done wrong, but imho no distro is 100% superior to another.
example: debian is stable and robust, but that doesn't make it overall better than mandrake - they just have different targets.
same goes for mdk & rh: mdk is more newbie-friendly then rh while rh is probably less buggy (except their kde)

[AngryPuppy]

The Executioner put is harshly (what do you expect from an executioner), but I agree that in my own experience, Redhat8 has been the better product.

I had trouble with Mandrake not recognizing my USB chipset and I had frequent problems with file corruption... again, I think a driver was off for my IDE interface.

Both of these things could be resolved with kernel recompiles, but for a Newbie, that is a hard thing to do right.

Mandrake is having a short term money problem. They claim that their long term outlook is better, however.

I've had good luck with SuSE in the past, also.

Terry

[sharth]

Originally posted by DredNort
In my opinion the best distro of linux depends on a: your hardware and b: what sort of person you are.
a- Most distros have versions that suit hardware back to 486.
b- Do you want to put your toe in to test the water, then wade in from the shallow end? Then Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE and Caldera are for you.
If you like to jump in the deep end after asking those in the water how cold and deep it is, then Debian and Slackware are your best options.

I've done a bit with an older version of Caldera, and a bit on Mandrake 7.2. I've just 'converted' over to Slackware.:) :)

I also recon that after you get a good system going, LinuxFromScratch would help learn the inner workings of the OS we all love so much. I drowned. :)

[raevsky]

"Mandrake is french trash"

my friend - all of linux is culturally european..

patriots should stay with MS.

[minusime]

patriots should stay with MS.

haha, that's right. microsoft's model is much more capitalistic (i.e. american) than the socialistic linux development...

i hope this doesn't tick anyone off...but just think about it.

[raevsky]

I did not mean "socialistic" - only that patriotic biggotry has no place in a OS which is inherently international with strong european roots in the following:
- if free (as in beer and in freedom)
- its a community not a corporation
- it does not rely on TV (or other ads)
- it is FAR better-known in Europe. Just look at the number of linux magazines available over there (such as "Planete Linux" or "Login" or "Linux Mag" in France) which you can by in ANY newstand.
- it is accepted and (gradually) supported by governments (local and state mainly)
last, but not least,
- because MS is seen as a branch of the (oh so popular!) US government by many.
there are many more reasons I could list, but the bottom line for me is this. I lived in Europe for 30 years of my life and in the US for 6. The US strikes me as (almost) "linux desert".
RH does deserve a huge credit for making linux more user-friendly, for RPMs, for linux visibility, etc. But Red Hat's target are CORPORATIONS. Whereas SuSe and, even much more so, Mandrake are aiming at the individual user. And that is THE main difference. There is the bazaar and the cathedral, and then there are the US cathedrals running the products of the bazaar...

I hope nobody will be offended by the above. If some patriot is, think of the French saying "il n'y a que la verite qui blesse" (only the truth really offends).

Cheers!

[The Executioner]

Europeans suck, I use Microsoft, I'm riding with the King :cool:

[raevsky]

QED

[AeroDragon]

Hello, I am a newb and I have been digging up some info on linux, and I'm Stuck between RedHat, SuSE, and Mandrake.

I've heard some good and bad things about each of them, but I don't know which one the ABSOLUTE begginer should start with.

I'm currently using Microsoft ME, and have some experience in C++, Java, and Python.

I've only been on this Linux thing for a few weeks, and on this site for a few hours. Please Help!

[raevsky]

Hi,

An "absolute beginner" does not have C++, Java and Python exposure :-))

No, seriously, you can pick either RedHat, or SuSe or Mandrake, they are all fine products. Stay clear from Debian and Slackware, at least as a first taste of Linux. These are also VERY good distributions, but not ones to start with (nevermind the macho idiots who claim that the three big ones are unstable or otherwise not "pure" enough - they don't know what they are talking about). All others are not such good products at all, and some are terrible (Lindows being probably the worst).

As for the top three (RH,SuSe, Mdk), I would visit their websites, look at what their mailing lists & discussion groups look like, and what type of support their communities offer. By this I mean the NON-PAYING support you can get from volunteers (the paying stuff is simply not worth the money or the time).

One last thing: office suites (since you are a ME user, this is probably important for you). Under linux there are several decent office suites, but I would reccommend you stick with OpenOffice which is really MS-Word compatible. If you are willing to pay, then Hancom and WordPerfect are options which I hear are good but which I have not tried myself (hate to pay for software).

For programming, linux is dream come true. I can't even begin to list all the good software which is available out there (on any of the majors distributions).

Don't wait for any "one corrrect solution". This is not the linux way. Think of linux as a huge library in which you have to pick your own books and make your own collection. If you look, you will find exactly what you need and you will have a great time doing it!

Enjoy!

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by AeroDragon
Hello, I am a newb and I have been digging up some info on linux, and I'm Stuck between RedHat, SuSE, and Mandrake.

I've heard some good and bad things about each of them, but I don't know which one the ABSOLUTE begginer should start with.

I'm currently using Microsoft ME, and have some experience in C++, Java, and Python.

I've only been on this Linux thing for a few weeks, and on this site for a few hours. Please Help!
I don't want to offend you but... WHY DO YOU ASK THAT? It's already irritating to see people ask a question of which you know it has already been answered hundreds of times (or thousands in the case of the distro-question), and that it can't easily be found using a simple forum search.

But you... YOU ASK A QUESTION ABOUT WHICH WE'VE BEEN DEBATING FOR 9 (!!!) PAGES IN THE SAME THREAD!

Sorry, but I've never seen that I think. Why don't you read those 9 pages, and take your conclusions from them since we're obviously NOT all going to say "ok, you're right, you're distro is the best". EVERYONE will always have their own experiences and preferences. So, read those 9 pages and take conclusions from it.

I realise I'm being harsh (sp?) here, but asking a question we've discussed troughout 9 pages is really *not* acceptable IMHO.

[Coral Sea]

I am a Mandrake fan. I've tried just about every distro out there but find Mandy to be the best all-around Linux distro.

[AeroDragon]

Thanks, I know this debate has been going on forever and that question has been asked several times, but I just still needed to know which ones were good, and which ones to stay away from.

I just diddn't want to get something that I would'nt like in the long run.

I'll just try out Mandrake (I guess) and if I don't like it I'll get something else.

Thanks again and sorry for wasting your time.

[Niminator]

I like Redhat; there's more vendor support out there for it; for example Red Hat is the de facto version HP encourages their customers to use. If you're looking to get a job as a Systems Administrator, I'd highly encourage the use of Red Hat Linux, as a skill set, and at least a casual knowledge of FreeBSD, to impress the systems administrators that have been in the business for the last few years.

[khab]

Hi

i'm planning to run a file server off a 486 with as much ram as i'll be able to stuff into it and a 80 gig hard drive what would be a good distrobution that i could run that's good for networking?

[bosox79]

Originally posted by khab
Hi

i'm planning to run a file server off a 486 with as much ram as i'll be able to stuff into it and a 80 gig hard drive what would be a good distrobution that i could run that's good for networking?

I would check out http://www.distrowatch.com/
this site has great info but to better anwser your question, I hear slackware is a great server distro :cool: you just have to do most things from the CLI (unless I am mistaken)

good luck :)

[Hayl]

for stability and easy maintenance use debian.

[drfelip]

Hi! I'm new here!

I'm looking for a good Linux distro. I tryed Mandrake 9.0 and I liked it very much because it's very easy to install and everything is set up easily. But it runs VERY slow on my computer (Pentium MMX 233 MHz, 64 MB RAM), even on IceWM.

Can anybody give me advice about a Linux distro easy to install and set up, but that runs fast on my hardware?

Thanks in advance.

[JohnT]

http://www.edmunds-enterprises.com/linux/cart.php/ba/pdtl/product/115

[dugg]

give libranet (http://www.libranet.com) a try.

[threadhead]

i would recommend slackware as server because im using it
myself. its great to use!

[jetblackz]

slackware.com 8.1 would do the job nicely on your box.

http://jetblackz.freeservers.com/InstallingSlackwareLinux81.html
http://jetblackz.freeservers.com/ConfiguringSlackware81.html

[Icarus]

www.gentoo.org
Sure it might take a day to four to get installed with a GUI but if you follow their install instructions it will be a breaze...plus portage is very cool (emerge) :cool:

[Tiomera]

gentoo, or debian(if you dont want to take the trouble for gentoo)...I have seen debian running on a 486 66Mhz with 16Mb RAM with a simple GUI, ran fast!

[Penrich]

Debian is doing better on my PII 266 with 192 MB RAM than SuSE did. I prefer Fluxbox or Enlightenment, never used IceWM too much (too much like Windows!). KDE is just going to be slow whatever on such a machine. Most things I've read say that more memory is going to be your biggest bang for the buck, so increase your RAM if you can...

[Dutch_64]

Originally posted by drfelip
Hi! I'm new here!

I'm looking for a good Linux distro. I tryed Mandrake 9.0 and I liked it very much because it's very easy to install and everything is set up easily. But it runs VERY slow on my computer (Pentium MMX 233 MHz, 64 MB RAM), even on IceWM.

Can anybody give me advice about a Linux distro easy to install and set up, but that runs fast on my hardware?

Thanks in advance.

i don't know what window manager you are using but problaby KDE or Gnome , maybe you could just keep mandrake and install fluxbox as a window manager and see how your speed is then , it should be much faster because KDE and Gnome take up alot of ram. and therefor your computer will do alot of swapping. fluxbox is much easier on the ram. and fluxbox can look awesome if you have it set the way you like it .

www.fluxbox.org

[Icarus]

I have a P100 laptop w/48mb of memory running nicely with Debian 3.0 using IceWM, was to afraid to try loading Gentoo on it :D

[drfelip]

Thanks to all people here!

Well, when I said "easy distro" I meant "easy for a newbie", and as I heard everywere, Gentoo and Debian are quite difficult to install and set up.

I decided in favor of Vector Linux 3.0. In spite of being based on Slackware, it looks more easy to install it. Libranet (based on Debian) looked very well, but I think the current version (2.7) is too expensive, and I'm afraid triying the free version (2.0), it seems too old.

So I'll try Vector, return here and then tell you what's it like (for a total newbie).

[Joe_Atlanta]

You're running a p233 and worrying about a distro being too old? :confused: Debian is a pretty fast distro, but you won't get the latest and greatest eyecandy even with the most recent stable release.

The trick with Libra 2.0 is to use it simply as an installer for Debian. Let it automatically configure all your hardware, set up scsi emulation for your burner if you need it, boot manager, etc. Do a minimum install of packages. This should get you into iceWM (a nice thin Xwin manager). Then from a su command line do apt-get update, then apt-get upgrade. Boom, you've got the latest stable Debian.

[ssjf]

Originally posted by Dutch_64
i don't know what window manager you are using but problaby KDE or Gnome .

Uh...

Originally posted by drfelip
... even on IceWM

You should read first.

Try Debian. It won't take 5 days to install (like gentoo), and it only installs what you ask for. Just my $0.02. Debian is a lot easier to set up than debian. It will be an excellent learning experience. Just remember, we are here to help, so don't worry about the install too much.

[Nu-Bee]

Originally posted by drfelip
Hi! I'm new here!

I'm looking for a good Linux distro. I tryed Mandrake 9.0 and I liked it very much because it's very easy to install and everything is set up easily. But it runs VERY slow on my computer (Pentium MMX 233 MHz, 64 MB RAM), even on IceWM.

Can anybody give me advice about a Linux distro easy to install and set up, but that runs fast on my hardware?

Thanks in advance.

How about installing Knoppix to your hard drive? (Debian Based)

Here's the HOW-TO:

http://www.freenet.org.nz/misc/knoppix-install.html

This sounds like a breeze!

[drfelip]

Originally posted by Joe_Atlanta
You're running a p233 and worrying about a distro being too old? :confused: Debian is a pretty fast distro, but you won't get the latest and greatest eyecandy even with the most recent stable release.

The trick with Libra 2.0 is to use it simply as an installer for Debian. Let it automatically configure all your hardware, set up scsi emulation for your burner if you need it, boot manager, etc. Do a minimum install of packages. This should get you into iceWM (a nice thin Xwin manager). Then from a su command line do apt-get update, then apt-get upgrade. Boom, you've got the latest stable Debian.

I'm worryed about distro age mainly because of kernel. I don't want to recompile kernels and so, only something that works, and I hope that newer kernels had better USB support and so.

The point about Libranet is very good, I would try it! Sadly, I'm a dialup user, and I'm afraid that apt-get update & upgrade would take too much.

Thanks for your advice!

[Icarus]

If your worried about the kernel, you can still install an older distro and most of them have package installs that would update it to one of the newer ones (most likely in the 2.4.18 area)

[Richard Craneum]

I have close to the same parmeters, but my PC is a Compaq Presario 4550 AMD K6 233 with 48 MB RAM and does not support more than that. I tried Slackware 8.1 and Peanut 9.4 and is a slug, for what I read the KDE is too big to run with just 48MB and my HDD is spining the crap out of it. The only OS that runs decent is the original Win95. There is way that I do not have to use a lot of the swap space so my PC can speed things up? It has to have a GUI, is for my lazy teenager and he is not one of those kids that types his way on the PC, it has to be Click and go. If not what other distro suggestions. I do have a Packard Bell 486DX2 66MHz w/64 MB RAM that I want to put it to work too.

[Penrich]

Originally posted by ssjf
.

Uh...



You should read first.

Try Debian. It won't take 5 days to install (like gentoo), and it only installs what you ask for. Just my $0.02. Debian is a lot easier to set up than debian. It will be an excellent learning experience. Just remember, we are here to help, so don't worry about the install too much.

Now who is going to get nit-picky...? :D

[drfelip]

Originally posted by Richard Craneum
I have close to the same parmeters, but my PC is a Compaq Presario 4550 AMD K6 233 with 48 MB RAM and does not support more than that. I tried Slackware 8.1 and Peanut 9.4 and is a slug, for what I read the KDE is too big to run with just 48MB and my HDD is spining the crap out of it. The only OS that runs decent is the original Win95. There is way that I do not have to use a lot of the swap space so my PC can speed things up? It has to have a GUI, is for my lazy teenager and he is not one of those kids that types his way on the PC, it has to be Click and go. If not what other distro suggestions. I do have a Packard Bell 486DX2 66MHz w/64 MB RAM that I want to put it to work too.

If you already installed Slackware or Peanut, try using a ligther window manager instead of KDE: IceWM, WindowMaker, XFCE, Fluxbox... All of them are much ligther than KDE.

As far as I know, Peanut is a very light distro, so I don't know if using Vector or Libranet will help, so try the window manager point.

[Richard Craneum]

Sorry for the dumb question, where do I find IceWM, WindowMaker, XFCE, Fluxbox... ?

[iamchilled1]

I'm a mandrake 9.0 user, so I know what your saying. I tried this morning to install libranet 2.0 on an old compaq presario. I've tried libranet in the past with no success,, however, this version installed with little effort on my part. If you can get through the harddrive setup and if you know what kind of hardware you got, the install should be a breeze. easier than vector IMO.

[joesbox]

Originally posted by Dutch_64
i don't know what window manager you are using but problaby KDE or Gnome , maybe you could just keep mandrake and install fluxbox as a window manager and see how your speed is then , it should be much faster because KDE and Gnome take up alot of ram. and therefor your computer will do alot of swapping. fluxbox is much easier on the ram. and fluxbox can look awesome if you have it set the way you like it .

www.fluxbox.org

if you are scared of installing too much on the puter or just to try something you can use blackbox which comes with mandrake 9 and if you like that then you can install flux. black is a little brother compared to flux (in a way) so you will get a good feel for it.

[sharth]

Originally posted by Richard Craneum
Sorry for the dumb question, where do I find IceWM, WindowMaker, XFCE, Fluxbox... ? check freshmeat. I think its www.freshmeat.net, but google it if it is not.

[Penrich]

www.xwinman.org is a great site too for windows managers.

[Richard Craneum]

I just reinstalled Slackware and used the Low Cholesterol desktop manager, it runs better and the HDD does not go nuts like before. It looks a lot like Win95 is oke with me then. The Netscape came handy since it has the AOL IIM on it. All I need is, if I can re-flash the BIOS and bump to bump the RAM. I do have a 128MB Compaq stick here but the PC only recognizes 48MB. I might try later with the Packard Bell. By the way Peanut 9.4 has the coolest Enlightment desktop I ever saw, but that was on my ECS K7S5A v3.x MoBo that woks excellent, no sweat on that one. But I ratter stick with Mandrake and Red Hat if the CD gets on time.

[audioaficionado]

Originally posted by UlTiMaTeHH
ok i desided to throw away my windows cds and step completely over at linux unix based system im a 15 yr old boy and im wondering WICH version of linux is best 4 me and where i can download it because this is my first time and there are so many different linuxes i asked here please give me a tip

DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR WINDOWS CDs !

I've got the perfect Linux for a virgin newbie.

Knoppix 3.1 live CD Linux.

You only have to DL and burn one 700Mb ISO. It's packed with 2Gb of apps and a varaity of kernels. F2 boot up cheat codes let you use other window managers other than the default KDE3. You can even save your config settings if you add the PH scripts to the Knoppix folder before you burn the ISO.

The best part is you don't even install it to your hard drive. I'm using it on an old Pentium Pro 200 dual CPU and it detected all my hardware and both processors.

No risk test drive Linux. It doesn't get much better.

[Coral Sea]

Originally posted by audioaficionado
DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR WINDOWS CDs !

The best part is you don't even install it to your hard drive. I'm using it on an old Pentium Pro 200 dual CPU and it detected all my hardware and both processors.

No risk test drive Linux. It doesn't get much better.

SuSE has a demo ISO too that lets you run SuSE from CD.

[audioaficionado]

Knoppix is using Debian for the distro and the 2.4.20 kernel. Not too shabby.

How much does SuSE pack in it's live CD demo?

[Coral Sea]

Originally posted by audioaficionado


How much does SuSE pack in it's live CD demo?

Can't remember offhand but definitely enough to play around with to see if you like Linux and SuSE. I don't care for SuSE.

[Big dady]

And what is the "best" linux for me
and I like it easy and good for my sistem

[mnsu25]

I say Red Hat 8. I a newbie, and found this very easy to install and run, so far. I also have an Nvidia Gforce4 mx 440, it had the drivers in it, works great also.[list]
Athalon xp 2100
Abit KG7 raid
Gforce4 mx 440
512 DDR
80 Gb HD
Tv card
Sounde blaster live
usb 2.0
fire wire
cable modem

[audioaficionado]

Originally posted by Big dady
And what is the "best" linux for me
and I like it easy and good for my sistem

Knoppix IMHO as it won't touch your system's HDs unless you allow it or want to save files.

If you screw it up royally, reboot for a fresh start.

Freeware & no risk :D

You can always install Linux to your HD after you've practiced.

You can even install a distro over the net while in Knoppix. (need high speed internet connection)

[Elijah]

Originally posted by AeroDragon
but I just still needed to know which ones were good, and which ones to stay away from.

I just diddn't want to get something that I would'nt like in the long run.

I'll just try out Mandrake (I guess) and if I don't like it I'll get something else.

yah, Mandrake's good, try also redhat ... maybe knoppix or Suse. After you've learned enough, do the Debian thing and be a slacker(slackware) or maybe a cow (gentoo). I heard YOS is also good, but got some bad comments from it.

I can't say much on what to stay away from, personally I don't like Lycoris, reminds me of windows. Lindows costs some money so I don't even consider it. But it's all your choice anyway, I'm not telling ya to stay away from them. Just my experience.

[sanderso]

I'm a pre-newbie: doing my homework before making the "penguin plunge". The discussion here has been terrific! Thanx to all who have contributed.

A Question: in moving from one distrib to the next in trying to find the "best", what happens to user data files? Are user data files kept intact, or are they deleted as if a new user (or set of users) is being created? In fact, must a new set of user profiles be created in trying a new distro?
(I guess that's three questions!)

Thanx in advance.

[Penrich]

One way to keep all that stuff would be to keep a separate /home partition for each user/group of users. Then when you come to install a new distro, just make sure you do not touch that partition. Should be straight forward, although I've not actually done it :)

[sanderso]

Thanx for your good suggestion.

It makes sense to partition the user data on its own partition. Of course, that assumes that the various distros can all read the same disk format of the partition.

[Penrich]

That sort of thing is a function of the kernel, and so is standard across all GNU/linux distros. Some formats (eg. reiserFS) may not be compiled in as standard, so you'd have to make a custom kernel (a "simple" recompile) or just use ext3 for your partition.

[sanderso]

Thanx for your info...that confirms what I was hoping...that such important linux "infrastructure" is standardized. Such an issue is not super important for me now, but could be going forward. At this point, I'm just figuring out the best way to get my feet wet.

My strategy was to use my old, old Pentium 133 box. Unfortunately, it only has 16mb ram and likely wouldn't be enough to do anything but learn a few console commands. I previously had added an 18G HD (for W95) and had to add a bios extender to enable the bios (and fdisk) to see it.

I downloaded peanut linux last night but haven't installed it yet. My concern is that the extended bios card may present some challenges....better saved until after I have some experience under my belt. Sounds more and more like the chance to get that new P4 box!

[audioaficionado]

You'd better do your homwork on your BIOS HD overlay utility. A lot of them are incompatible with Linux. I know WD EZ-BIOS isn't. None of my win9x OS can see past the first 8gb partition or HD without EZ. I have w2kPro which can see past the BIOS limit as its bootloader isn't dependant on the BIOS. Once W2k & 98se are dual booting without EZ, I can then install Linux.

[Penrich]

:confused: I use EZBIOS (I got it from Maxtor, but I'm pretty sure the actual utility is the same) and it can see all of my 30 Gig HDD just fine - Win (back in the old days) or Linux.

[sharth]

Originally posted by Penrich
That sort of thing is a function of the kernel, and so is standard across all GNU/linux distros. Some formats (eg. reiserFS) may not be compiled in as standard, so you'd have to make a custom kernel (a "simple" recompile) or just use ext3 for your partition. Not all kernels have the feature enabled, and some kernels use external patches that add support for other features. However, most of the big ofter used stuff (ext2, ext3, rieserfs, ntfs read, fat32, etc etc etc) are in the standard kernel. download the norm kernel frmo www.kernel.org, unpack, and run make menuconfig and see what is available.

[sanderso]

Thanx for your advisory audioaficionado. Another nail of support for the new P4 box. I think I'd be in for a quite a trip getting my linux learning time from the old 133.

I originally added the 18G HD to the 133 to add disk space for other boxes on my home LAN...not caring that the 133 is slow. Unfortunately, the 133/W95 box has been iffy at best (thanks uncle bill) and seemed like a good project to learn linux and samba. As I say...I think the new P4 comes first, the 133 comes second.

[audioaficionado]

Originally posted by sanderso
Thanx for your advisory audioaficionado. Another nail of support for the new P4 box. I think I'd be in for a quite a trip getting my linux learning time from the old 133.

I originally added the 18G HD to the 133 to add disk space for other boxes on my home LAN...not caring that the 133 is slow. Unfortunately, the 133/W95 box has been iffy at best (thanks uncle bill) and seemed like a good project to learn linux and samba. As I say...I think the new P4 comes first, the 133 comes second.

I got Knoppix live CD to load on my 486/66 with IceWM. Glaciers move faster but what the hey, I got it fully loaded without errors. I just couldn't open a browser LOL.

Slap another HD in that box and put Linux on it. GRUB or LILO should be able to make it work.

[sanderso]

Slap another HD in that box and put Linux on it. GRUB or LILO should be able to make it work.

Hmm...learning on a new P4 box sounds like so much more fun! :D

[sanderso]

Originally posted by sharth
Not all kernels have the feature enabled, and some kernels use external patches that add support for other features. However, most of the big ofter used stuff (ext2, ext3, rieserfs, ntfs read, fat32, etc etc etc) are in the standard kernel. download the norm kernel frmo www.kernel.org, unpack, and run make menuconfig and see what is available.

sharth, thanx for the detail...

[audioaficionado]

Originally posted by Penrich
:confused: I use EZBIOS (I got it from Maxtor, but I'm pretty sure the actual utility is the same) and it can see all of my 30 Gig HDD just fine - Win (back in the old days) or Linux.

Are you using it with Linux?

If so, how did you set it up?

[dunbar]

Linux has correctly circumvented BIOS limitations for me in the past.... I got full 5 gigs on a Pentium 133 (not PII) with RedHat Linux 5.0, Same drive was many 512 meg partitions with W95.

[sanderso]

Originally posted by dunbar
Linux has correctly circumvented BIOS limitations for me in the past.... I got full 5 gigs on a Pentium 133 (not PII) with RedHat Linux 5.0, Same drive was many 512 meg partitions with W95.
I can relate. W95 forced my carving the 18G HD into 9 partitions. A real pain in the a** to use and backup.

[Penrich]

Originally posted by audioaficionado
Are you using it with Linux?

If so, how did you set it up?
Just slap in the floppy with the Maxtor Utilities on it and reboot. Follow the prompts... Don't think there was anything specific I had to do. It just sits there and loads at boot time AFAIK.

[audioaficionado]

Originally posted by Penrich
Just slap in the floppy with the Maxtor Utilities on it and reboot. Follow the prompts... Don't think there was anything specific I had to do. It just sits there and loads at boot time AFAIK.

Western Digital has an explicet warning about EZ-BIOS not being compatible with Linux. So I'm setting up my new 80Gb SE without it to play it safe. I hope the first 8Gb partition is visible to 98se without EZ. Anything past the first partition or if the partition is larger than the 8.4Gb BIOS limit can't be seen by win9x without EZ or its equivalant.

[starsurvivor]

Download and install Redhat 8.0, it's fast and easy to install...

[Penrich]

Originally posted by audioaficionado
Western Digital has an explicet warning about EZ-BIOS not being compatible with Linux. So I'm setting up my new 80Gb SE without it to play it safe. I hope the first 8Gb partition is visible to 98se without EZ. Anything past the first partition or if the partition is larger than the 8.4Gb BIOS limit can't be seen by win9x without EZ or its equivalant.
From Maxtor re ezbios and linux (http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/maxtor.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=9GDQoozg&p_lva=&p_faqid=380&p_created=984594051&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTIyJ nBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9ZXpiaW9zIGxpbnV4JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R 5cGU9MyZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMT1_YW55fiZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMj1_Y W55fiZwX2NhdF9sdmwxPX5hbnl_JnBfY2F0X2x2bDI9fmFueX4 mcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=), although they do also say that Red Hat 5.2 will not work, due to issues with LILO. However, those must have been sorted by now!

Heres a thread (http://www.linuxnewbie.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67050&highlight=ezbios), but the OP never said if he got it to work or not...

[Penrich]

And one last link that may helpto a Large disk HOWTO (http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO.html)

[Penrich]

And one more thing... I think that WD's EZ-Drive (http://www.westerndigital.com/library/eide/ezdrfb.pdf) (the software that determines whether you need the EZ-BIOS or not) does not work with linux, whereas the EZ-BIOS itself SHOULD be OK.

[As always, don't come crying to me if you fry your hard drive. All I can say is that it works for me ;) YMMV - your mileage may vary]

If you want somebody elses opinion on this, start a new thread in General Questions. But do post somewhere if/how you got it to work (open ended threads are so annoying when you come to search!)

[Abos]

First off, I want to point out that I'm new to Linux, and to programming, as well. I've been taking a C++ class at school and I've found that it's actually pretty interesting. From what I've heard, Linux is better for progamming than Windows (the school actually just set up a new Linux server for this reason).

I was just wondering, though, if one distro in particular stands out as better for programming... especially for a newbie like myself.

Also, up to this point, the only programs I've done were those assigned in class. I'd like to write a program of my own, but I don't know where to start... any ideas????


Thanks.

[jetblackz]

My C & Java teachers are cool with Linux. It's obvious. MS have their own versions of everything.

Most distros will include gcc that's all you need. If you must, go for Debian as early as possible.

gcc hello.c -o hello
./hello

[arlenagha]

well Abos i don't know what you mean by linux being better for programming than windows, but i know that Linux is better as an operating system than windows. for programming you should mostly be concerned with the IDE ( integrated development environment) that you choose. it is true that you can just type you source code in a text editor (Emacs for example) and then compile with gcc (or some other Linux compiler) by typing the command at the command prompt. however, most programmer choose IDEs since everything (source editor, compiler, debugger, project manager,etc) is there for you to use without leaving the programming. i am a linux user and i also write c++ code in linux. i prefer using Anjuta. eventhough anjuta is young, it kicks some bigger IDE behind. it has some really nice features. Anjuta is mostly for developing GNOME/gtk software, and is limited for KDE development. so i suggest you try Anjuta if you are using GNOME. if you are using KDE i guess you should try Kdevelop which is just as good but i haven't tried it. i did try Kylix (free edition) but did not like it at all.


...and one more thing. i just which that my school did set up a linux servers and desktops too. they are all stuck with windows (which i hate)....

later now

[sajchurchey]

I currently have to use bootable CDs to run Linux in some of the computer labs here. Are there any bootable CD distros that run better than DemoLinux 3.0, which i use now?

[Penrich]

Dunno about DemoLinux, but Knopix and Suse Live eval spring to mind...

[sajchurchey]

I recall having some trouble w/ the SuSE 8.1 Live. It would load but then refused to boot from it. I downloaded it from http://www.linuxiso.org. Think it might be a problem w/ the ISO. Haven't tried Knoppix though.

[jimbrown]

Hello

I keep pretty up2date on Linux related issues and have been noticing lately that a relatively new distro has sprung up and looks very promising. It's called Yoper and from the little I've heard, read and seen, it is a splendid specimen of eye-candy. Anyone here ever try it and is it worth the download?.

Nice screenshots! ----> http://www.yoper.com

- Thank's

[Hayl]

im not sure how it is "eye candy" when you can run kde or gnome exactly the same on any other distro.

[Tiomera]

The only thing is it is compiled to run on a i586 or i686( a little faster then on new computers) and is bloated with many modules installed, so everything runs more easily. I guess it can be called a newbie distro :)

[jimbrown]

It's eye-candy *because of* the fact it uses KDE and not only that but the *very latest* version of KDE, not to mention the fact that it uses a very nice *theme* that does not ship as a standard KDE theme. This is why I say it is eye-candy. Oh, that and just the fact that it IS eye-candy because it is beautiful to look at;-)

- Cheers

[jimbrown]

Hi

After you read my last post (directly above unless someone posted just before I get ready to hit the submit button), please know that I, in fact, take back my earlier remarks about how good it looks. Actually, it does look good but after some reading, it looks like you basically have to type in 20 lines of code just to install a program and it is not your standard "user" distro like Red Hat or Mandrake. It's more for...er...well I hav'nt quite figured it out yet.

- Cheers

[scott_R]

The site says it's a release candidate. Unless you're planning on just playing around/helping to improve it, it's probably not worth the download time. That, of course, is assuming you have a slow connection. If your connection is fast enough that you can download it in an hour or so, why not test it, and help the other users out?

[Hayl]

the theme in all the screenshots is keramik - which is commonly available. the icons are alvaro's crytal icon set - also commonly avilable.

www.kde-look.org

[jimbrown]

Originally posted by Cybr099
the theme in all the screenshots is keramik - which is commonly available. the icons are alvaro's crytal icon set - also commonly avilable.

www.kde-look.org

Right. I've used the theme myself with Mandrake. Still, it isn't the default with any of the distros I've ever tried (available, hidden or otherwise). I do like it though. I prefer ICEWin and liquid myself.

- Cheers

[BFK4ever]

I can say it's fast! The people at yoper are very nice, and quick at answering questions. Like someone said it's not your standad distribution, like Mandrake or Redhat. I just switched back to Redhat 8.0, although I did like YOPER for it's speed, it really didn't have much else going for it. It auto-installed the NVIDIA drivers for my Geforce 3 ti200, and the XF86Config-4 is bloated as heck! Whenever I ran 'glxgears' or 'glxinfo' I got a segmentation fault. When I tried installing Phoenix, I got errors about libraries, and the YOPER team is still kind of puzzled, after I tried the 'solution.' Fluxbox compiled fine, and it ran really nicely :D My internet was auto-configured by DHCP, and my soundcard SBLive! was also. My brother had just gotten the retail version of Tactical Ops for a cheap $15 at Electronics boutique. While running an unofficial installer I got some errors, and it wouldn't even install the game engine. As you would guess the update didn't do anything. When I was installing the first UT It segfaulted. YOPER will be an awesome OS, but it does need time. Unless Redhat for i686 processors comes out, I don't think I will be trying another OS till soon :O) I just switched back to Redhat, and have the Tactical Ops retail installed with the unnofficial installer, no probs @ all :D Now I get my phoenix, mpeg1/2/3, and fluxbox, and I'm ready to roll :O)

I would really like to see Redhat for i686, IMHO that would be a distro that would be #1 on distrowatch forever, and I could use some extra speed, hehe!

[habibno05]

i found that quite a few different companies that have distrobutions of linux have an ftp site that has cd images of their installation cds. to get to the site type "ftp://ftp.companyname.com/" where "companyname"= they company that created the distrobution. example.. ftp://ftp.slackware.com/
found this out the other day while messing around.

[JoeyJoeJo]

I have an older AMD k-6 400 with 192 ram that I want to be a file server (with linux and windoze machines) and an Apache Web Server. Is there any distro that is better for this?

[mdwatts]

Most distros already include Apache and Samba, so it's up to you which one to use.

Some distros have 'server' versions such as Redhat Advanced Server and SCO/Caldera OpenLinux Server 3.1.1.

[Can O' Beans]

Yeah, theres many that would work fine.

Personally, I'd compile Gentoo optimized for that PC, and emerge just the needed files.

I have it running on a 2x366@550 celeron and got Apache/PHP/MySQL up & running, but I haven't really got to set any webpages up other than some test ones :(

[Ammotroop]

:confused: I want to start using linux but I don't know what distro is good for my hardware setup:

AthlonXP 2200
512 RAM
MSI KT4V
Audigy X-Gamer
ATI 9700 Pro
2x 80Gig Hds
Aopen cd-rw
No name DVD drive
No name Floppy drive
Microsoft Intelli explorer
Intel 536 ep V.92 Modem
Dual Monitors
3Com Etherlink XL 10/100 3c905c-tx
Logitec Quickcam zoom

I want to have XP Home on one HD and linux on the other and I want to dual boot. Any help would be welcomed.

[jason490]

Thats a lie! You're really just wanting to brag about your system :D

Nice! lol

Anyway, I suggest Mandrake if you are wanting to dual boot with no problems.

I run RedHat and it is great too. I would recommend redhat myself, but Mandrake tends to be more Newbie friendly.

Get Mandrake 9.0, NOT the newer beta version

[Ammotroop]

Thanks

[CyPHer_138]

All of them are.:D
There's a Linux for anything you could ever need.

[dkeav]

my grandma loves play solitaire on her via c3 computer but lycoris is very very slow as hell on it is there a more lightweight distro all it needs to do is run kde(preferreably) and solitaire fast as possible nothing else matters got ten gig hd to work with so whatever just needs to be quicker than lycoris

[cookiemonster]

I would say to get a hold of an older distibution. Mandrake 7.1 comes to mind, it came out when c3's speed was about what the average to higher middle end computers were using. I would say that that should work out for you. I happen to have that laying arround, if you cant find somewhere to download it I would be willing to make a copy and send it your way.

Dan

[dkeav]

oh thanks for the offer but i have time and bandwidth so its not necessary i think im just gonna throw deb or lfs on it maybe gentoo somthing where i can leave out all the junk that isnt needed

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by dkeav
my grandma loves play solitaire on her via c3 computer but lycoris is very very slow as hell on it is there a more lightweight distro all it needs to do is run kde(preferreably) and solitaire fast as possible nothing else matters got ten gig hd to work with so whatever just needs to be quicker than lycoris

If it's just for games, why not stay with Windows :confused:

*dodges bullets and flames*

:(

OK, it was just a thought ;)

[jetblackz]

Actually, it's the desktop environ. that's slowing everything down, so are the unneeded services that run by default.

Tweak it some you have to. Switch to fluxbox, nah, forget it. She's not gonna learn how to use it. Stick with KDE 2.2.2 or older.

[dkeav]

holly crapolla they have a ton i mean ton of uneeded processes running my mdk runs maybe a 1/16 that maybe i there are a bunch of zombies hmmm is their an application to manage the processes running

[jetblackz]

That happens to be Control Center on desktop. Log in as root. Use your logic to decide what's needed and not. Obviously mail/news/ftp/apache servers are not.

[dkeav]

hey dkeav i have an answer that might work:rolleyes: GProc

[BritishNemesis]

Alright I was thinking redhat 7 or 7.3 however I can't find any system requirements for these versions anywhere....

Specs:

P100Mhz
96MB RAM
11GB Hardrive space

I would not be opposed to mandrake... but redhat is just easy to learn... can anyone tell me the min. system requirements for these?

[error27]

I have a laptop 150Mhz with 128M of ram installed with RedHat 8.0

I can't use OpenOffice. But it works ok for programming on the train to work.

[TCaptain70]

If you're up to learning it, slack works great. I had it installed on an old P133 laptop with no CD and only 1.2 gig of HD space.

It worked pretty good if you used only the command line and/or a really light window managed (I used IceWM personally...) although KDE did work ok..slow, but ok.

Though Slack isn't as user friendly with the install, but its still pretty good.

[Icarus]

I"ve had Debian 3.0 running on a p100 w/48MB of ram using IceWM. Worked good enough to take notes and programming.

Even had DOSemu working very well on it :D

Currently I have a p150 w/160MB of ram running Red Hat 8.0 very smooth. Kind of slow using Mozilla but it still works nice. The trick with installing newer distros on old laptops is memory, Linux can run fine on any CPU but it requires a good amount of memory for anything GUI based

[pave79]

I got vector linux 3.0 installed on old comp.

Specs:
486
16 Mb RAM
1 Gb hardrive

It was easy to install and it runs fast enough for me.

[2damncommon]

P100Mhz; 96MB RAM; 11GB Hardrive space
Those are not bad specs at all.

If you watch what window manager you use (and packages do not exceed i586 optimization) you can install about anything.

Bad specs are something like:
Processor: 486
RAM: 4mb
Hard Drive: 120mb

Your processor is on the slow side, RAM is not bad (128-256 is better), hard drive should have plenty of space for general usage. The main thing is wise installation choices and see what runs well.
Good Luck

Almost forgot: No KDE or Gnome for you. Use ICE, Blackbox or such.

[LinuxLuke]

alright, my girlfriend is looking to try linux, and she's got a 486 laying around (I know, not a good way to start, but hey...) can anyone recommend a small distro with a window manager (fluxbox would be great)?

Specs:
Processor: 486 (not sure of much more than that as I haven't yet looked at it)

RAM: 16MB (soon to be 24, space permitting)

Disks:

388MB
760MB
1GB
3.5" 1.44 MB Floppy
CD-ROM

I'm going to stick my old Sierra screamin' 3D card in it, so a distro that supports some hardware would be good

I know that's a lot to ask, but if someone knows of one, please post it to save me the hours of searching.

-Luke

[mdwatts]

General forum search results for '486 distro' (http://linuxnewbie.org/forum/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=343668&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) of which you will find all sorts of suggestions.

http://old.lwn.net/Distributions/

[raggie30]

any one try it? is it good

[je_fro]

I'll get there soon enough...and I'll let you know...I just tried Yoper and Arch.
-meh, nothing special.

[mdwatts]

Try a forum search for 'evil enity' to see what others have already posted about it.

Would save you a bit of time.

[raggie30]

kewl ty that search did save a lot a time yesterday looking up stuff

[2damncommon]

If you are familar enough with Linux that you would feel comfortable choosing applications and doing some configuration from command prompt - Debian.
Maybe check out Vector Linux if you want something "out of the box".
RAM is on the low side for GUI.
Good Luck

[wapcaplet]

MuLinux (http://mulinux.sunsite.dk/)

Great minimal Linux distro with a GUI. I installed it on my 486/66 with 16MB RAM, no problems whatsoever! I believe it uses fvwm, but you could probably configure it otherwise if you got *****ious.

[manicka]

If you've a fairly new machine. Mandrake 9.0 :D

[louis_b]

At home,I have this old pentium celelron 300 mhz computer with 256 mb ram and a USB cdwriter running WindowsME. Slower than molasses in January and hangs if you sneeze. I have already tried RH7.2 at work and like it enough not to use windows at all. I had a few other distros around so I thought I'd get rid of the windows and try Lycoris first. I booted into Windows, inserted the first cd and the installation program started right away. I didn't choose the expert mode. There were some nice features of the installation program, such as allowing me to see if the mouse config is corect and choosing the display resolutions and then testing them. After that, the program runs in the background and solitaire pops up. A game and a half later, it was done, rebooted and all set up, running KDE. Only one cd was required but the set I have had 4 cd's with lots of additional programs and the source RPMs.

It's going to take time to get used to KDE as I am familiar with Gnome. Xine is installed by default and it runs well.

Lycoris uses RPMs and has an excellent package manage, which appears to be better than RedHat's.

The installation found my HP8210 usb cd writer and all I had to do was create a mounting point. I presume it didn't create a mount in fstab because the drive is removable. I wonder if it is hot pluggable.

I think for a total newbie, this distro is a lot less painfull than RH7.2.

[bluesky]

I am looking for a good distro with kde and it fits in one CD iso image. I tried libranet but for reason unknown, its X windows suddenly became unstable.:(

[Raoul_Duke]

Yoper?