|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > November 2002 > Redhat 7.2 vs 8.0
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about setting up a linux machine for quite awhile
now. I've finally decided to do it.
The problem is I have a sealed box with Redhat 7.2 Prof in it that's
never been used. I bought it at the beginning of the year. Now, of
course 8.0 is out.
Is 8.0 so much different it's worth the upgrade?
Is it possible to upgrade this software somehow after installation or
would I be better off throwing out 7.2 and buying the new stuff?
Obviously I know nothing about linux :-)
Regards,
Larry
- TIA -
| |
| Sandra M. Schock 2002-11-29, 1:24 pm |
| "Obviously I know nothing about linux :-)"
Uh oh...Paul, Joe and Sybren are going to eat you alive.
| |
|
| screw those guys. Everybody has to start somewhere. Now on to the question:
If your machine is big enough HW -wise, then go for 8.0, unless it is a production box. I would recommend RH 7.3 if that's the case. I found RH 8.0 to not be stable enough for production. Check out www.LinuxHell.com where I wrote a short article on that very matter.. | |
| Lenard 2002-11-29, 2:25 pm |
| begin virus.exe On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:20:53 +0000, ldg wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about setting up a linux machine for quite awhile now.
> I've finally decided to do it.
>
> The problem is I have a sealed box with Redhat 7.2 Prof in it that's
> never been used. I bought it at the beginning of the year. Now, of
> course 8.0 is out.
>
> Is 8.0 so much different it's worth the upgrade?
>
IMHO Yes 8.0 is much different and is worth the upgrade.
A few words of warning;http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html
> Is it possible to upgrade this software somehow after installation or
> would I be better off throwing out 7.2 and buying the new stuff?
>
It would be better to install Red Hat Linux 8.0 than upgrade from Red hat
Linux 7.2, but it is possible.
Some may suggest that you use Red Hat 7.3 instead of Red Hat 8.0, I cannot
disagree with them.
Why buy new stuff, you can download either Red Hat Linux 7.3 or Red Hat
8.0 for free.Choose a site; http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html
You can also purchase cheap copies of the downloads from;
http://cart.cheapbytes.com/cgi-bin/cart
(Pink Tie sets)
http://www.linuxcentral.com/catalog/index.php3?cat[]=lccd&id=lA9YVYhmW5YaA
(Linux 8.0 Install CDROMs -3 CD set)
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-11-29, 6:24 pm |
| On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:20:53 +0000, ldg wrote:
> I've been thinking about setting up a linux machine for quite awhile
> now. I've finally decided to do it.
>
> The problem is I have a sealed box with Redhat 7.2 Prof in it that's
> never been used. I bought it at the beginning of the year. Now, of
> course 8.0 is out.
>
> Is 8.0 so much different it's worth the upgrade?
8.0 really is much better, but the choice should depend on what machine
you have and what you plan to do with it.
> Is it possible to upgrade this software somehow after installation or
> would I be better off throwing out 7.2 and buying the new stuff?
Upgrading between 7.2 and 8.0 is hardly worth the effort. There are too
many basic differences. Many people find this upgrade too difficult to be
worthwhile. IMHO you are better off installing RH 8 fresh.
This is commonly seen advice.
On the other hand, because RH 8.0 is the "zeroth" revision of a new
release, it is rather buggy compared to what we should expect for 8.1 or
8.2. Maybe you would be better off running 7.2 for a while (as an
educational experience), then downloading 8.1 or 8.2 when it becomes
available.
This is also advice commonly seen here.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
|
|
>8.0 really is much better, but the choice should depend on what machine you have and what you plan to do with it.
>Very good. I should have mentioned this.
I build two or three computers a year for my business and intend to
build one specifically for this operating system. I like to build as
close to the "bleeding edge" as possible since my simulation software
is expensive and bringing sim times down to hours from days or weeks
is a huge cost savings (for me, anyway). The trick will be to chose
hardware that already has linux drivers.
I'm a design engineer (analog-mixed mode integrated circuits). I
intend to use this box to run some sort of spice program, schematic
capture, and an ic layout tool. I may look at the Tyan Thunder k7x
board with dual athlons. I don't think it has raid though, and I've
been running raid 0 for the speed. (Still thinking about this.) I'll
load it with ram since I routinely have to open 2 gig (2-d) graphic
files. Like most I'm concerned about building the top machine now
only to find the 64 bit cpu's out in the first quarter of next year.
I'm an experience unix user with no admin experience.
As I don't play games or things of that sort, I'm only interested in
how stable the operating system is with my design software. It
wouldn't do to have a sim go on for a week only to have it crash at
the last minute.
I'm surprised that OpenOffice crashes 8.0. I use this now on Win2k
and it seems fine there. It just makes me concerned that it wouldn't
run my engineering programs.
Is 7.3 an upgrade from 7.2 or is that also a full operating system to
buy?
Thanks for the suggestions!
Regards,
Larry
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-11-30, 2:24 am |
| On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 05:01:35 +0000, ldg wrote:
/ ...
> I'm surprised that OpenOffice crashes 8.0.
Sorry? AFAIK this is not true. Can you provide a reference? It is very
difficult to find a combination of factors to "crash" Linux. Some programs
may "crash" X windows, but that is a very different thing, much less
serious.
Linux is in general extremely stable, far more stable than Windows. No
"blue screen" sorts of events, or very rarely.
> Is 7.3 an upgrade from 7.2 or is that also a full operating system to
> buy?
The distinction has no meaning, especially when you consider that they are
all free.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
|
| from Paul:
>Sorry? AFAIK this is not true. Can you provide a reference? It is very
>difficult to find a combination of factors to "crash" Linux. Some programs
>may "crash" X windows, but that is a very different thing, much less
>serious.
Sorry, it was StarOffice:
http://www.linuxhell.com/rh8.htm from freak.
Apparently it locked to the point of requiring a reboot.
Is it possible to do a remote login from another machine to kill
locked processes? This usually works in unix.
So you're under the impression 8.0 is stable enough to use?
I'm just reading and asking dumb questions :-) Thanks for the
patience.
Regards,
Larry
| |
| Tan Zheng Da 2002-11-30, 11:24 am |
| ldg wrote:
> from Paul:
>
>
>>Sorry? AFAIK this is not true. Can you provide a reference? It is very
>>difficult to find a combination of factors to "crash" Linux. Some programs
>>may "crash" X windows, but that is a very different thing, much less
>>serious.
>
>
> Sorry, it was StarOffice:
> http://www.linuxhell.com/rh8.htm from freak.
>
> Apparently it locked to the point of requiring a reboot.
>
> Is it possible to do a remote login from another machine to kill
> locked processes? This usually works in unix.
>
> So you're under the impression 8.0 is stable enough to use?
>
> I'm just reading and asking dumb questions :-) Thanks for the
> patience.
>
> Regards,
> Larry
Here are what I find unstable about Red Hat 8.0:
1. KDE -- problems with the panel (crashes and sizing of the taskbar) as
well as crashes/data loss in KNotes application
2. "LANG=en_US.utf-whatever"... breaks a lot of applications (such as
xterm man page display, Acrobat reader) unless you set it back to
"LANG=en_US".
3. Use of gcc3.2 compiler makes it difficult to build some sources and
old source RPMS.
4. RPM database corruption -- 'rpm -e' sometimes hangs, forcing a
deletion and rebuild of the RPM database. Last time I checked with
bugzilla, the Red Hat engineer had no clue why it happened cos' they
can't duplicate it inhouse. It was suspected to be some race condition
with pre- or post-install scripts. Related issue: radical change of
'rpm' command which separates build options to 'rpmbuild' so this also
breaks some old source RPMS' makefiles.
5. Poor multimedia support - lack of support for MP3 and MPEG in general.
On the bright side, LVM support is available in Red Hat 8.0 and it works
pretty well. Also anti-aliasing is done right, comparable to what you
see on Mac OS X. So far I have avoided using 8.0 on my personal
systems, but I have set it up on some servers which could benefit from LVM.
--
tzd.
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-11-30, 12:24 pm |
| On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:07:35 +0000, ldg wrote:
> from Paul:
>
>>Sorry? AFAIK this is not true. Can you provide a reference? It is very
>>difficult to find a combination of factors to "crash" Linux. Some
>>programs may "crash" X windows, but that is a very different thing, much
>>less serious.
>
> Sorry, it was StarOffice:
Which version of StarOffice? People might want to know.
> Is it possible to do a remote login from another machine to kill locked
> processes? This usually works in unix.
Yes, this is normally possible, and obviously when it is, the system is
not really "locked". In a case like this, where remote login shows signs
of life, what is locked is X windows or a specific process, not the
kernel. The originator of this account probably didn't know about
Ctrl+Alt+Backspace.
> So you're under the impression 8.0 is stable enough to use?
Yes, with the proviso that "zeroth" releases tend to be less stable than
their successors. I am having no serious problems with RH 8, on six
systems including three laptops. I much prefer it over its immediate
predecessor, RH 7.3.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-11-30, 12:24 pm |
| On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:54:44 +0800, Tan Zheng Da wrote:
/ ...
> Here are what I find unstable about Red Hat 8.0:
>
> 1. KDE -- problems with the panel (crashes and sizing of the taskbar) as
> well as crashes/data loss in KNotes application
Yes, but KDE isn't Linux, and Red Hat has tried to steer people away from
KDE for the reasons you describe. You did notice the default was Gnome,
yes?
Don't get me wrong -- I prefer KDE myself, because it offers more, in
spite of the bugs. I just do a lot of backing up. 
> 2. "LANG=en_US.utf-whatever"... breaks a lot of applications (such as
> xterm man page display, Acrobat reader) unless you set it back to
> "LANG=en_US".
A simple bug and bug fix, the sort of thing that "zeroth" versions are
famous for.
> 3. Use of gcc3.2 compiler makes it difficult to build some sources and
> old source RPMS.
Yes, this is very important, and something most people don't realize at
first. The new compiler is very much different than its predecessor, gcc
2.96. It is fair to say it represents a substantial architectural
overhaul, and it does break a lot of old code.
> 4. RPM database corruption -- 'rpm -e' sometimes hangs, forcing a
> deletion and rebuild of the RPM database. Last time I checked with
> bugzilla, the Red Hat engineer had no clue why it happened cos' they
> can't duplicate it inhouse. It was suspected to be some race condition
> with pre- or post-install scripts. Related issue: radical change of
> 'rpm' command which separates build options to 'rpmbuild' so this also
> breaks some old source RPMS' makefiles.
Haven't seen this bug, and yes, the new RPM support does cause some
problems with older sources. I suspect the different compiler and
binary-compatibility issues would break those anyway.
> 5. Poor multimedia support - lack of support for MP3 and MPEG in
> general.
This was a conscious policy decision by Red Hat, who were (it is said)
afraid of legal action.
> On the bright side, LVM support is available in Red Hat 8.0 and it works
> pretty well. Also anti-aliasing is done right, comparable to what you
> see on Mac OS X.
Yes, now if only Mozilla will catch up with the improved font handling
available elsewhere in the system.
> So far I have avoided using 8.0 on my personal systems, but I have set
> it up on some servers which could benefit from LVM.
Well, clearly someone who wanted only this and some related features,
could simply dispense with X windows, KDE, Gnome, and some related
content, and IMHO would have a pretty stable server environment.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| John Hasler 2002-11-30, 1:24 pm |
| Larry writes:
> Is 7.3 an upgrade from 7.2 or is that also a full operating system to
> buy?
Both, but you don't need to buy it at full price unless you think you need
the support.
I suggest that you look at Debian at www.debian.org.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
| |
| Lenard 2002-11-30, 3:24 pm |
| begin virus.exe On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:35:13 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, now if only Mozilla will catch up with the improved font handling
> available elsewhere in the system.
>
>
>
Mozilla 1.2 came out with Xft support for Red Hat Linux 8.0, unfortunately
there's a bug in the code and it was pulled. Mozilla plans on releasing
Mozilla 1.2.1 shortly, hopefully this to will come out with Xft support.
From Mozilla's page; http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
Mozilla 1.2 - Released November 26, 2002
We've discovered a bug in Mozilla 1.2 (Bugzilla bug 182500) that can cause
DHTML on some sites to fail. We plan to release Mozilla 1.2.1 with a fix
shortly.
Also, the 1.2 release tag was not complete so builds created from that tag
may not be correct. If you're building Mozilla you can pull the tip of the
branch or wait for the 1.2.1 tag.
|
|
|
|
|