|
|
| csiszerd 2003-06-04, 8:36 am |
| I have SuSE 8.2 and I am loading RedHat 9.
 (Ding Ding) let the fight begin
Has anyone else compared these two Linais? | |
| Boulware5 2003-06-04, 11:28 am |
| RedHat 9 is great. Never used SuSe before. | |
| qbknewbie 2003-06-04, 11:37 pm |
| I really like Slackware I used to use Redhat but a friend of mine always made me feel bad and stupid for using it. So I switched to slackware instead. Never used SuSE so I can't comment on that. | |
|
| I used both Redhat 8.1 and Suse 8.0, and have to say Suse is much better! I love the installation process and the GUI is just sweet. Redhat is also very good, but I prefer Suse. Haven't had a chance to try th latest Suse 8.2, but hear its much better than its predecessor. | |
| csiszerd 2003-06-05, 7:17 pm |
| Is Samba any different between the two? | |
| tadams119 2003-06-05, 9:12 pm |
| I downloaded the Redhat 9 ISOs with Bittorrent earlier this week and have the CDs ready to go. Unless I chicken out I'm going to attempt to install them on a 18 month old Sony Laptop this weekend and dualboot with XP Home. Any tips? Think I'll have any trouble?  | |
|
| Easiest thing to do is to create another drive but leave it unpartitioned. That way you can install it on that drive and if you dont like it, just delete the partition. And if you installed the boot loaded on your boot record, just fdisk it (fdisk /mbr).
Hope this helps. | |
| tadams119 2003-06-06, 9:01 pm |
| Yep. I Deleted the second partition on the laptop which left me with 8 gigs free. I then made a 4 gig fat32 D partition and named it storage. That left me with 4 gigs free for Redhat 9. But now I can't get the computer to boot from the Redhat disc. I've checked the bios and it is set to boot first from the cdrom, but it's not seeing it on startup.
Any ideas?
<edit>
I wonder if something special has to be done to disc 1 to make it a bootable disc? I burned it with Nero and Nero does have a option to burn a bootable cd but I can't get it to work with the ISO image. Hmmm. Spent some time on Nero's support page, no luck. Ok, just tried to get the old Pentium2 box to boot from the Redhat disc 1 but it ignored it.
Is there something I'm missing to make Redhat9 disc one bootable? | |
| tadams119 2003-06-07, 10:23 am |
| I feel like a cartoon in Linux For Dummies. I have the wrong ISOs. I have the SRPMS ISOs instead of the i386 ISOs. So I get to download three ISOs now. Even at 80k/sec off bittorrent it will still take all day. So maybe tomorrow. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by csiszerd
I have SuSE 8.2 and I am loading RedHat 9.
(Ding Ding) let the fight begin
Has anyone else compared these two Linais?
Yep
Have them both installed
I like RH 7.3 GUI better than in 8 or 9
9 runs really sweet - I'm impressed
But I have to say SuSe kicks RH's but
This is the first time I've had it loaded & I'm very impressed with it.
I would prefer the programs to load at install, instead of when accessed. Kinda of a pain to try to start something & have to go get the disk & wait for files to install.
But all in all - I'm quite impressed with SuSe
 | |
| tadams119 2003-06-08, 10:26 am |
| RH9 is on the laptop now. Installation went off without a hitch once I had the right CDs.
Wow! That Ximian Gnome desktop is pretty! Pretty slow too. Programs are taking 3, 5 even 10 seconds to launch on the 900 Mhz Duron notebook with 256 megs of sdram. Under XP Home Office XP apps launch very quickly on the same machine. Probably because they are partially pre-loaded into memory when I start the computer like Internet Explorer does. But overall, Redhat 9 does give the feeling of a bloated operating system that is burdening this little laptop. I would not reccomend this OS on anything less than a 1Ghz processor and 512 megs of ram.
It's no biggie because all I really need is the terminal to type commands at while I learn the basics of getting around at the Linux command line. | |
| neuralfx 2003-06-08, 11:40 pm |
| quote:
I really like Slackware I used to use Redhat but a friend of mine always made me feel bad and stupid for using it. So I switched to slackware instead. Never used SuSE so I can't comment on that.
That's the unfortunate part of the *Nix community. We have a tendency to be elitists. So what ends up happening is all the distro's get shunned for this or that. Especially, when in reality there is nothing very different between the two, as far as the software is concerned. I think Redhat takes a lot of flak becuase they are somewhat successful. Really, it's in everyone's best interest for Redhat to do really well, I think, because the more RH gets pushed, and the more the RHCE gets pushed, the better for Linux in IT. Of course, you don't want it to (what some fear) become a Microsoft (which I don't think would happen) but RH has a better chance at making Linux shine than Slackware (nothing negative implied). Its just that RH has done a lot more than the slackware group could (financially) to market linux as a real viable product.
-neural
-Oh ya, not to go on a tangent, but I am very leary of SUSE and their licensing model so I tend to stay away from them. | |
| jgribble 2003-06-10, 1:55 pm |
| Are you running SuSE Pro?
I like it a lot better than RedHat. Plus there are a few things that you have the option to install that Red Hat does not offer. | |
|
| Myself........I'm more familier with RH & Mandrake.
I tried SuSe a few years back & didn't care for it. But for the little bit I've poked around 8.2 Pro recently, I'm very impressed. It seems quite smooth & very robust. The only thing I don't care for is after a supposed complete install I still have to supply the CD for it to finish installing programs the first time they're ran. That is anoying to me. But that is it's ONLY shortcoming I have found. I'm liking it better than RH so far.
I'd like to get my hands on the server version to play with & learn. But the $ is out of my budget.
I hadn't noticed SuSe having something that RH didn't though.
 | |
| fatchronos 2003-06-11, 1:07 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by tadams119
But overall, Redhat 9 does give the feeling of a bloated operating system that is burdening this little laptop. I would not reccomend this OS on anything less than a 1Ghz processor and 512 megs of ram.
Wow you certainly do like to pass hasty judgement! I'd hate to be a girlfriend of yours
"Sorry, did not get into your pants in the first 5 minutes of the date, i hate you never want to see you again"
In all seriousness, give it a chance. If a part of the OS doesn't run how you like it, well thats the best thing about linux, you are free to change what you like!
Its a universally accepted phenomenom - the prettier somethign is, generally the slower it is. there are HUNDREDS of desktop environments around, gnome is not the only one by far. Its been a while since i used it but from what i remember, yes, gnome can be pretty slow. you can try another big-time env like KDE and see if that helps, its almost as pretty.
But if you're willing to sacrifice some looks you can get a more 'lightweight' desktop env and it will fly, trust me. Some of them are quite pretty aswell.
Also, try compiling a more lightweight kernel, something that only has what you need in it. this should probably take a beginner 30 minutes to an hour for first time, but it is well worth it.
Hell, you can even run Xwindows without a DE at all, but thats pushing it a little
btw. if you compile a custom kernel you can also decrease your startup times, sometimes down to 30-50% | |
| fatchronos 2003-06-11, 1:09 am |
| btw - i dont completely disagree with you, redhat is somewhat bloated. once you get a bit of experience and can confidently run a more lean distro (i.e slackware), you will also notice speed improvements, as well as more HD space etc.
pretty + ease of use = bloated. there is just no way around it | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by tadams119
RH9 is on the laptop now. Installation went off without a hitch once I had the right CDs.
Wow! That Ximian Gnome desktop is pretty! Pretty slow too. Programs are taking 3, 5 even 10 seconds to launch on the 900 Mhz Duron notebook with 256 megs of sdram. Under XP Home Office XP apps launch very quickly on the same machine. Probably because they are partially pre-loaded into memory when I start the computer like Internet Explorer does. But overall, Redhat 9 does give the feeling of a bloated operating system that is burdening this little laptop. I would not reccomend this OS on anything less than a 1Ghz processor and 512 megs of ram.
It's no biggie because all I really need is the terminal to type commands at while I learn the basics of getting around at the Linux command line.
Red Hat is slow & bloated if you turn on all the crap & load all the junk there is there to load.
IF you know what you're doing & deselect the stuff you don't need during the instalation process & turn off/down the desktop candy, it runs at about the same speed, or better than XP.
And to compare anything against XP & say it is bloated ................?
XP IS THE MOST BLOATED OS on the market. And it isn't that blazingly fast at all.
I do not agree with your comparisons whatsoever
Best thing about any Linux OS is it doesn't have the report home to big brother technology that CANNOT be totally disabled like XP does.
Linux takes some configuration. It's made that way. It isn't like the no brainer plug N pray XP which is designed for the typical technology challenged home user.
| |
| tadams119 2003-06-12, 10:13 pm |
| - tohrt
- fatchronos
Yeah, I was a little hasty in blaming Redhat 9. After playing with it some more I've come to the conclusion that it was Open Office and Mozilla that were slow to launch and it was not the OS's fault. Both of those apps are notoriously slow to load. Between work, school and Medal of Honor Allied Assault, I've not messed with RH9 in the last few days. But I'll spend some quality time with it this weekend and maybe and check back then. | |
| fatchronos 2003-06-12, 10:15 pm |
| I don't know about openoffice, but yes, mozilla is a beast anyway, good on you for sticking with it | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by tadams119
- tohrt
- fatchronos
Yeah, I was a little hasty in blaming Redhat 9. After playing with it some more I've come to the conclusion that it was Open Office and Mozilla that were slow to launch and it was not the OS's fault. Both of those apps are notoriously slow to load. Between work, school and Medal of Honor Allied Assault, I've not messed with RH9 in the last few days. But I'll spend some quality time with it this weekend and maybe and check back then.
Cool
All office programs are a hog to load. You shut down MS Office so it doesn't load as a TSR in the background & you'll draw social security by the time it is up.
I don't use Mozilla because it is such a hog. It locks up & crashes more than other browsers.
IMHO
RH9 is pretty smooth & quite robust. I've always been an RH or Mandrake fan.
But I've recently loaded SuSE 8.1 & 8.2. They are really smooth. I am totally impressed.
|
|
|
|