|
|
| ruscorp 2004-03-01, 4:05 pm |
| I got my 160 SATA HDD today and I plan to dedicate some of it to learning Linux.
Anyone have any idea so what would be a good distro for a Windows idiot like me?
Slackware?
Redhat?
SuSE?
Debian?
Which is the basically the easiest when it comes to usage and installation so I don't screw up my entire HDD while installing. | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-01, 4:12 pm |
| RedHat or Mandrake. If you use RedHat, remember they stopped distributing the consumer version, so don't make that your permanent disto - it's fine for learning though. And if you like RedHat there is always Fedora.
Debian, Slackware and FreeBSD are more advanced. Be sure to backup everything if you want to dual boot. I haven't dual booted in quite a while, but I remember it was so easy to fux your hard-drive. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-01, 7:33 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
RedHat or Mandrake. If you use RedHat, remember they stopped distributing the consumer version, so don't make that your permanent disto - it's fine for learning though. And if you like RedHat there is always Fedora.
Debian, Slackware and FreeBSD are more advanced. Be sure to backup everything if you want to dual boot. I haven't dual booted in quite a while, but I remember it was so easy to fux your hard-drive.
I have RedHat 9.0 burned to a cd. I downloaded the iso a while ago. Perhaps I should try Mandrake? | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-01, 8:47 pm |
| RedHat is fine for learning. Just remember RedHat will stop suporting it soon (no updates and patches), so I wouldn't make that my everyday distro. I say try a few and see which you like. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-01, 9:18 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
RedHat is fine for learning. Just remember RedHat will stop suporting it soon (no updates and patches), so I wouldn't make that my everyday distro. I say try a few and see which you like.
What exactly do you mean by RedHat "will stop suporting it soon?" As in RedHat is dead or something? Did they come out with something new? | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-01, 9:29 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
What exactly do you mean by RedHat "will stop suporting it soon?" As in RedHat is dead or something? Did they come out with something new?
RedHat will only support the enterprise version. You won't see RedHat 10.0, etc.. Just a business decision they made I guess. They won't continue the free version anymore. There is something "new" called Fedora . Quoting from the site:
The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 times a year with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system that uses free software development practices and is more appealing to the open source community. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 12:28 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
RedHat will only support the enterprise version. You won't see RedHat 10.0, etc.. Just a business decision they made I guess. They won't continue the free version anymore. There is something "new" called Fedora . Quoting from the site:
The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 times a year with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system that uses free software development practices and is more appealing to the open source community.
Screw RedHat. Damn sellouts.
I just got that SATA drive installed. It's sweet. Now which Linux distro will recongize the drive? The Ext2 and swap will be on the SATA drive. | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-02, 1:02 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Screw RedHat. Damn sellouts.
I just got that SATA drive installed. It's sweet. Now which Linux distro will recongize the drive? The Ext2 and swap will be on the SATA drive.
Yeah I say screw RedHat too. They are kind of like the Microsoft of Linux. Also, go with EXT3, not EXT2. EXT2 is older and not a journaling file system like EXT3. Here's some info on SATA and Linux:
Serial ATA (also known as S-ATA or SATA) chipsets are rapidly replacing legacy "parallel ATA" (PATA, i.e., regular ATA/133) IDE chipsets — but many Linux installers' kernels don't yet support Serial ATA chipsets, unless that kernel is around 2.4.21-ac4 / 2.6.0-test9 or later — or an earlier kernel with backported drivers. (Exception: Pretty much any installer's 2.4.x kernel will support a 3Ware Escalade SATA host adapter, as they were supported early.) If yours isn't supported, you have an installation obstacle. SuSE 8.2's, Gentoo's, Knoppix's, and Mandrake-Cooker's installation kernels have a good selection of the required drivers.
There are three workaround options:
1. Switch the motherboard BIOS back to "legacy ATA mode" (parallel ATA = PATA). Complete a Linux installation. Fetch or build a kernel with support for your chipset. Switch the BIOS setting back. (Potential catch: It's claimed that Dell Optiplex GX270 desktop units, using Intel ICH5 SATA chipsets, don't support switching to legacy ATA mode. This might be true of some others.)
2. Temporarily add a regular ATA ("IDE") drive to your system. Install Linux onto that. Fetch or build a kernel with support for your chipset. Migrate your system to the hard drives connected to the Serial ATA host adapter.
Support is mostly in 2.6 kernels, and in circa-2.4.23 and later kernels. Note that device names will change, if you upgrade kernels from 2.4.x to 2.6.0, e.g., move from /dev/hdg to /dev/sda. So, e.g., append "root=/dev/sda3" to kernel's boot options.
----------------------
Now the latest Mandrake (9.2) includes kernel 2.4.22. The Linux kernel is up to 2.6.3 now and the 2.6.x series supports SATA better. You may oy may not have success; all I can say is give it a try. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 9:27 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
Yeah I say screw RedHat too. They are kind of like the Microsoft of Linux. Also, go with EXT3, not EXT2. EXT2 is older and not a journaling file system like EXT3. Here's some info on SATA and Linux:
Serial ATA (also known as S-ATA or SATA) chipsets are rapidly replacing legacy "parallel ATA" (PATA, i.e., regular ATA/133) IDE chipsets — but many Linux installers' kernels don't yet support Serial ATA chipsets, unless that kernel is around 2.4.21-ac4 / 2.6.0-test9 or later — or an earlier kernel with backported drivers. (Exception: Pretty much any installer's 2.4.x kernel will support a 3Ware Escalade SATA host adapter, as they were supported early.) If yours isn't supported, you have an installation obstacle. SuSE 8.2's, Gentoo's, Knoppix's, and Mandrake-Cooker's installation kernels have a good selection of the required drivers.
There are three workaround options:
1. Switch the motherboard BIOS back to "legacy ATA mode" (parallel ATA = PATA). Complete a Linux installation. Fetch or build a kernel with support for your chipset. Switch the BIOS setting back. (Potential catch: It's claimed that Dell Optiplex GX270 desktop units, using Intel ICH5 SATA chipsets, don't support switching to legacy ATA mode. This might be true of some others.)
2. Temporarily add a regular ATA ("IDE") drive to your system. Install Linux onto that. Fetch or build a kernel with support for your chipset. Migrate your system to the hard drives connected to the Serial ATA host adapter.
Support is mostly in 2.6 kernels, and in circa-2.4.23 and later kernels. Note that device names will change, if you upgrade kernels from 2.4.x to 2.6.0, e.g., move from /dev/hdg to /dev/sda. So, e.g., append "root=/dev/sda3" to kernel's boot options.
----------------------
Now the latest Mandrake (9.2) includes kernel 2.4.22. The Linux kernel is up to 2.6.3 now and the 2.6.x series supports SATA better. You may oy may not have success; all I can say is give it a try.
I currently have my computer like this:
Primary IDE (bootable): WD HDD 40GB
Salve: None
Secondary IDE: DVD-ROM
Salve: Burner
Third IDE: SATA WD HDD 160GB
The first SATA channel is wiritten as "Third IDE" in the BIOS.
Will this cause problems? I do have a primary IDE HDD. I just don't want to use it except for botting. Not enough space left with the 40GB, however space is pentliful with the 160GBer! | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
I got my 160 SATA HDD today and I plan to dedicate some of it to learning Linux.
Anyone have any idea so what would be a good distro for a Windows idiot like me?
Slackware?
Redhat?
SuSE?
Debian?
Which is the basically the easiest when it comes to usage and installation so I don't screw up my entire HDD while installing.
I'd recommend SuSE. Red Hat will stop supporting the non-Enterprise software soon. mandrake 9.0 had some issues with installing on some hard drives. Slackware and Debian are not for new users. SuSE gives you a fully graphical install, excellent hardware detection, and is similar to Red Hat in most ways. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 3:23 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dr. C
I'd recommend SuSE. Red Hat will stop supporting the non-Enterprise software soon. mandrake 9.0 had some issues with installing on some hard drives. Slackware and Debian are not for new users. SuSE gives you a fully graphical install, excellent hardware detection, and is similar to Red Hat in most ways.
I liked SuSE but couldn't find the isos. All I found were Evals. | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-03-02, 3:33 pm |
| Did you try here?
Cheers,
TB | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 4:03 pm |
| So I guess most people here think SuSE is better than Mandrake?
Really all I'm looking for is this:
1.) Easy installation and user friendly to newbs.
2.) Ability to recognize SATA HDDs cuz I will be creating a Ext3 and swap on an SATA drive. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 4:07 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tarzanboy
Did you try here?
Cheers,
TB
I find the OS, but not the iso. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
So I guess most people here think SuSE is better than Mandrake?
Really all I'm looking for is this:
1.) Easy installation and user friendly to newbs.
2.) Ability to recognize SATA HDDs cuz I will be creating a Ext3 and swap on an SATA drive.
SuSE can do that. I have used Mandrake, but prefer SuSE. Either one should serve your purposes. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-02, 4:16 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dr. C
SuSE can do that. I have used Mandrake, but prefer SuSE. Either one should serve your purposes.
I'll try it oh and let u know what happens. | |
|
|
| Boulware5 2004-03-04, 9:16 pm |
| From what I hear, Suse is the best distro for detecting all your hardware during setup. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-04, 9:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by prezbedard
SuSE doesn't allow for the download of iso's you have to install it via ftp.
There are instructions on the website on how to do this.
http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/suse_linux/
SuSE looks good. However I still don't get it. | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-04, 9:30 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
SuSE looks good. However I still don't get it.
What dont you get | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-04, 10:05 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
What dont you get
How to acquire SuSE and put it on a cd. | |
| Boulware5 2004-03-04, 10:27 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
How to acquire SuSE and put it on a cd.
I believe the iso is here: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/live-eval-9.0/
Yeah, it was hard to find. I had to look for a little while.
You know how to burn an ISO file right? | |
| prezbedard 2004-03-04, 11:26 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
How to acquire SuSE and put it on a cd.
You can burn an evaluation copy onto cd but not actually install it from a cd. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-05, 11:25 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by prezbedard
You can burn an evaluation copy onto cd but not actually install it from a cd.
Exactly my point. I'm not looking for the eval. How can you deploy a OS that can't be put on cd? | |
|
|
|
|
| prezbedard 2004-03-05, 12:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
That sucks. Screw SuSE then. Who would want to do an FTP install?
I'm thinking about it as a future possibilty. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-05, 12:53 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by prezbedard
I'm thinking about it as a future possibilty.
Is that to like force you to buy the cd? | |
| Dr. C 2004-03-05, 12:56 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
That sucks. Screw SuSE then. Who would want to do an FTP install?
Maybe Mandrake might suit you better after all. They just released version 10 that utilizes the 2.6 kernel anyway . . . as far as I know they are the first to do that. | |
| Dr. C 2004-03-05, 12:57 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Is that to like force you to buy the cd?
I think so. A number of Linux companies are trying to get you to pay for the newest version of their distro. | |
| prezbedard 2004-03-05, 1:01 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Is that to like force you to buy the cd?
I don't believe so.
Read some of the material on the website.
They offer patches and updates at no charge at least it seems that way.
http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/index.html | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-05, 1:04 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dr. C
I think so. A number of Linux companies are trying to get you to pay for the newest version of their distro.
Totally defeating the purpose of Linux. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Totally defeating the purpose of Linux.
Well, for a company, the "purpose" of Linux is to make money for them. Open source is purely a means to an end. if you want hardcore 100% GNU, go for Debian . . . harder to use, and the packages tend to be older, but they are very well tested and completely GNU software. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-05, 3:06 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dr. C
Well, for a company, the "purpose" of Linux is to make money for them. Open source is purely a means to an end. if you want hardcore 100% GNU, go for Debian . . . harder to use, and the packages tend to be older, but they are very well tested and completely GNU software.
Actually I just went to a Microsoft TS2 seminar (I know this is off topic.) There they showed us a program that Microsoft bought from a smaller company called "Virtual PC."
My biggest fear with Linux is partitioning and co-existing with Windows. Cuz let's face it, I have totally reliant on Windows. That's why I asked which distro had the easiest installation. BTW, I thought the Mandrake install was 10 times easier than the RedHat.
Now with Virtual PC you can install different OS's without the worry of screwing up Windows which I like which gives me the opportunity to screw with just about damn near anything and not worry. It also saves the cost of have a "dummy computer." Everything can just be on one box.
I just thought it was a cool program. (not to sound like a Microsoft salesman or anything.) | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Actually I just went to a Microsoft TS2 seminar (I know this is off topic.) There they showed us a program that Microsoft bought from a smaller company called "Virtual PC."
My biggest fear with Linux is partitioning and co-existing with Windows. Cuz let's face it, I have totally reliant on Windows. That's why I asked which distro had the easiest installation. BTW, I thought the Mandrake install was 10 times easier than the RedHat.
Now with Virtual PC you can install different OS's without the worry of screwing up Windows which I like which gives me the opportunity to screw with just about damn near anything and not worry. It also saves the cost of have a "dummy computer." Everything can just be on one box.
I just thought it was a cool program. (not to sound like a Microsoft salesman or anything.)
There is very little chance of you screwing up your partition with one of the flashier installs like Mandrake or SuSE. From what I remembered, the last time I used Mandrake on a dual boot machine, it automatically configured my Windows partition to be mounted on bootup to /mnt/Windows so that I could access my Windows files from the Linux partition. The only thing you need to be sure to do if you want a dual boot setup is to use the free partition and not write over your Windows partition. Linux will not damage any existing operating systems. The only chance of you rinning into any real problem is when installing the boot loader, the Linux distro usually tries to set itself as the default boot OS. You can change this behavior, however.
If you are this new to Linux, Mandrake may be the best distro, as it used to be recommended for those wanting to dual boot . . . the latest editions of Red Hat didn't even have NTFS modules compiled into the kernel so to read from my Windows partition I had to recompile the whole kernel (easy, but kind of a pain to have to do). Just make sure you got enough space. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-05, 3:33 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dr. C
The only chance of you rinning into any real problem is when installing the boot loader, the Linux distro usually tries to set itself as the default boot OS. You can change this behavior, however.
Yea, that was my next question.
I installed Grub at work and LILO at home. How do I make the default OS Windows in each? Can I do it thru KDE? | |
|
| Well, you should be given the choice during the install, but if you aren't, look in /etc/grub.conf or /etc/lilo.conf and edit them by hand. In lilo, each partition will be given a lavel like "Linux" or "Linux-Safe" or "Dos" or "Windows" or something. There should be a stanza that says something like "default=Linux". Change that to whatever label you have your windows partition set to. Make sure to run the "lilo" command afetr you are done or else your chanegs will not take affect.
Grub is the same I think . . . there is a line that looks like "default=0" I think 0 means the first in the list of operating systems you have listed. I might be wrong, but experiment and you should be able to work it out. You don't have to run the grub command since grub reads the conf file upon bootup.
Ya, you can use a kde editor to edit the files. | |
| salv236 2004-03-07, 2:07 pm |
| ruscop have you tried www.linuxiso.org? they are really good for linux downloads i have tried them for redhat knoppix redhat free BSD and mandrake. | |
| ruscorp 2004-03-07, 2:11 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by salv236
ruscop have you tried www.linuxiso.org? they are really good for linux downloads i have tried them for redhat knoppix redhat free BSD and mandrake.
Actually, that's where I got Mandrake. I got RedHat 9 a wile ago too there.
Great site! | |
| marathoner 2004-03-07, 3:22 pm |
| I too just built a sata box. Tried Fedora so far, install seemed to work but problems with GRUB. Now lookin at Gentoo | |
| dgavrilovic 2004-03-11, 12:04 pm |
| Redhat and/or SuSE!!
the other 2 are not as windowz freidnly to install. but slack is muich more stable...
quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
I got my 160 SATA HDD today and I plan to dedicate some of it to learning Linux.
Anyone have any idea so what would be a good distro for a Windows idiot like me?
Slackware?
Redhat?
SuSE?
Debian?
Which is the basically the easiest when it comes to usage and installation so I don't screw up my entire HDD while installing.
| |
| slinkyredfoot 2004-03-26, 11:54 am |
| Seems like all recomend RPM based distros. The best package manager is easily Debians apt. If you're interested in running a stable server, give Debian a try. There is some great info on creating a Debian network over here: http://www.aboutdebian.com/.
As far as using Linux on the desktop goes, the same is true. Mandrake is really not that good as it is RPM based. Debian is a bit tricky to configure for desktop usage, so you may be interested in using a Debian based distro. I recomend Libranet. There are people who still insist that Debian is a bit dated. This is a myth. There are always 3 different versions of Debian. Stable, Testing and Unstable. Stable is what you would download and run on your server. The stability comes from it being dated, but stable and reliable. The testing branch is a bit more current and will ultimately be the next stable version. And lastly, there is the Unstable version. Don't let the name fool you. The debian maintainers are quite conservative in their naming conentions. In fact, the "unstable" version of Debian is probably more stable than the current Mandrake offering. After a basic Debian stable install, a mere editing of one file will direct the system to install from testing or unstable as opposed to the stabel default setting.
Currently, the testing release contains kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2. So its actually not dated but in fact quite cutting edge. What are you all waiting for, apt-get into it man! | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-03-27, 3:48 pm |
| I just went looking for a good distro for a P133 laptop and was quite disappointed in the available choices. It seems that Linux has started down the path of bloatware, as Debian was the only major current distro with posted minimum requirements that did not exceed the hardware specs.
Cheers,
TB | |
| prezbedard 2004-03-27, 4:09 pm |
| Did you try looking at older releases of the different distros? | |
|
|
| Tarzanboy 2004-03-27, 7:36 pm |
| Thanks Prez. Although not the most desireable option, the older versions are probably what I will end up trying, should I not go with Debian, Slackware or *BSD.
I was primarily ranting at the trend that the distro makers are following, which essentially is following the "evil" Microsoft's lead into requiring higher hardware requirements because they are "available". For example: Gentoo 2004, RedHat 9, Fedora and SuSE 9 all require 64MB of RAM and a 200MMX for console and 128MB and a P2 400 for X. As scary as it might sound, those requirements are a bit close to WinXP.
The current version of Debian, RH 7.2 and SuSE 8.0 have been tested and work fine with the laptop type, as have some of the BSDs. Slackware's published system requirements seem to meet the minimums, however I am unsure how old those posted requirements are.
Cheers,
TB | |
| prezbedard 2004-03-27, 11:05 pm |
| wow that is a big jump.
I have RH8 running comfortably on 8MB video and 128 ram
make that 120 ram since the video is built in and shares ram. | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-03-27, 11:43 pm |
| This 800CT laptop has 32MB of RAM. I could fork over ~$70 to upgrade it to 48MB, however I will most likely pass on the idea.
I think that 32MB should be more than enough considering I am more interested in functionality and security than eye candy. Not that 48MB of RAM with a NeoMagic vid card and 12.1 LCD is going to yield much in the way of eye candy...
Cheers,
TB | |
| slinkyredfoot 2004-03-28, 9:45 am |
| FFS people, what do you expect? If you want a full featured, ready to rock and compete with microsoft desktop, then the minimum hardware requirements are going to be high!
Now, if it's a server you're building there, the minimum requirements are very low. The current Debian release is compiled for the 386 architecture, literally. And the next release will most likely be 486. Stop complaining. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by slinkyredfoot
FFS people, what do you expect? If you want a full featured, ready to rock and compete with microsoft desktop, then the minimum hardware requirements are going to be high!
Now, if it's a server you're building there, the minimum requirements are very low. The current Debian release is compiled for the 386 architecture, literally. And the next release will most likely be 486. Stop complaining.
I'm not complaining. (Probably because I am running OpenBSD). | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-03-28, 4:34 pm |
| What do I expect?
Good point.
I am not looking for a gaming platform or a cheap OS to run on some newly released and overpriced hardware. I am likewise not looking for a replacement in the true sense for Windows XP or Windows Server 2003. I am looking for something that I could use as a workstation.
My idea of a functional workstation is one that doesn't require large amounts of RAM to run the simple items I want and is not weighed down with a slew of bloatware and eye candy I really don't use and items I do not need preinstalled or integrated.
Most of what I need is available from the console, however there are the occasional apps that require a GUI, so X must be installed. Although there might be some that may request it, I don't need Gimp, 32 bit color, OpenOffice, snazzy wallpaper, OpenGL screen savers, tres chic themes, a graphical IRC client, Apache, Qmail, PHP or a slew of computer games installed to make it a functional workstation.
Cheers,
TB | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-04-10, 7:48 pm |
| I managed to install FBSD 4.8 on the laptop and things seem to be working fairly well.
Cheers,
TB | |
| ruscorp 2004-04-10, 7:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tarzanboy
I managed to install FBSD 4.8 on the laptop and things seem to be working fairly well.
Cheers,
TB
Just remember this:
FreeBSD + IBM Thinkpad = Bad Idea. | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-04-12, 12:39 pm |
| Fortunately this is a HP Omnibook. 
Cheers,
TB | |
| ruscorp 2004-04-12, 12:55 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tarzanboy
Fortunately this is a HP Omnibook.
Cheers,
TB
Thankfully! I screwed up my Thinkpad at school 3 times before I learned my lesson. |
|
|
|