Linux: Your recommendations

[rugger]

Bootable cd's

Originally posted by nehalmistry
woohoo, 4 of us use slackware
well, you know the saying:
once you go slack, you never go back

btw, slackware 8.1 will require a bootdisk and
5 rootdisks to install, it seems they can't
compress the root images any more, because
it will span over several disks

i don't understand why they can't use the old
install system, nice n easy, 2 disks (well i just
install slack using loadlin from DOS anyways)

i hope they do something about it and shrink it
down to 1 rootdisk disk again

With bootable cd's this simply doesn't matter

If you can't boot the cd, you simply create a lilo boot disk and boot the slackware cd from it

[nehalmistry]

i dont have a burner, and i don't want to buy CD...

anyways, i like slackware 8.0, and i will use for a
long time... it does the job for me, and if i need
any upgrades, i just make the packages myself

thats one thing good about linux, if u want to
run a new program on an old distro, just update
any libraries you need to, and it should work

[Colin Morey]

one thing i like about FreeBSD and Gentoo is the ability to install a program and if it needs newer libs it will go and get them and compile them.

[AlgoRhythm]

Just my 2 cents....

I cut my Linux teeth on Slackware.... I've almost outgrown it, and I'm getting into Linux From Scratch.


AlgoRhythm

[DentyCracker]

I cut my unix teeth on SCO Unix 3.2v2.0 in 1991. I have however since become a gui wuss and prefer a nice easy linux like Mandrake 8.2 which runs great on my hardware, with a minimum of fuss or need to *argh* recompile. I even had drivers for my conexant winmodem. In fact my Logitech quickcam express worked fine in 8.2 which is more than I can say for it under XP.

[WxDude]

Slackware Rocks!

Hi,

Like AlgoRhythm, I learned Linux using Slackware. And this was back in the 1.2 kernel days.
I think that Slackware is a good starting point to learn Linux because it forces you to learn how to
do everything from the shell and not from a gui. It really is useful to have the knowledge about
where the config files are for everything, how to automatically startup programs on boot, etc.

But then again, I love to tinker with computers and OSes. Jumping in without much of a safety
net is the way I like to do it, but it isn't for everyone.

I've also used RedHat and Mandrake at work. They are nice if you are looking to get up and
running quickly. But they hide a lot of setup work behind the gui's. Again, just my Slack
bias coming through.

I would DEFINITELY recommend that you get the O'Reilly & Associates ( www.oreilly.com )
"Running Linux" book for your distro. I used it to get started and I think everyone trying to learn
Linux should have it for reference.


Just my US$0.02 ( which isn't worth much these days )

-WxDude;

[TnT]

I understand that the setup and such for GUI based distros does a lot of leg work for the user, so initial config isn't as controlled. That doesn't mean that once things are setup the user can't do things through shell and do changes without the GUI, right?

[Sasq]

I havn't seen the gui for redhat in about 2 months. its very rare I go into it. Mostly i ssh into the server and change what I need

Dan

[WxDude]

Tnt wrote:

I understand that the setup and such for GUI based distros does a lot of leg work for the user, so initial config isn't as controlled. That doesn't mean that once things are setup the user can't do things through shell and do changes without the GUI, right?

Correct, once things are set up, you can access the files and change configs from the shell and not
use the gui. I just found it harder to figure out what file was changed by which gui under RedHat than
Slackware where you had to change the files from the shell. Like you said, the gui does a lot of legwork
for the user, but if you don't know what file is being changed by the gui, then how can you edit it by
hand later?

Sasq:

I havn't seen the gui for redhat in about 2 months. its very rare I go into it. Mostly i ssh into the server and change what I need

Me too. Here at work I do a lot of work with RedHat systems. I almost never go into the
gui's myself. But for a new linux user learning to setup a system and finding out what does what,
I think the gui's can be as much a hindrance as a help.

-Wx

[TnT]

WxDude, I see that makes sense.

[The PIT]

Problem is the average Joe doesn't want to mess around editing files they want a point and click interface. If lunix never gets over this it will never challange microshaft as a desktop alternative.

[Colin Morey]

sorry, redhat has a gui???

I cut my *IX teeth on a combination of solaris 2.6 and redhat 4.x

C

[DarkStar]

For beginner - I really think that you should use SuSE. But if you wish more stability - use Slackware. I'am using unix for 5 years and my prefered os is FreeBSD - try it. It's easy to install, secure and very, very fast .

[rugger]

FreeBSD is only easy to install in some cases.

I tried to install FreeBSD onto one of my logical partitions, but the setup insisted I create the disk slice using primary partitions. So freeBSD is still on a CD waiting install.

[bobby2]

Ok - PDP11/70 Unix from 1984 on. And lots of variations thereafter.

humm, a Slack user from the time when it was the only distro .. save the odd other manchester based one.

how many here remember kernel 0.99pl15f - I hope there is someone whos longer in the Linux tooth than me.

As for which. The media world seem to think that RedHat IS Linux! Arseholes. It isnt bad, but its not perfect.

Slackware is. It needs very few upgrades, is supported by a HUGE community of expert Linuxers, and hell, Ive got boxes that run with it for years on end (literally). My record is a server (file/web/Db/mail) running for 390 days - then cleaning woman'ed.

I have on 7.1 Slack box stretching into 290 days ... work that out from release date.

Cotroversial bob.