I Did It!!

[OOPS!]

Hi All!!

I finally took the plunge and loaded RedHat. After watching this forum and listening to you all, I could not wait to try it.

It is amazing that someone who is completly ignorant about any type of Unix can load Linux and get it up and running in just a few hours of reading and study. It has been a blast learning the little that I have so far. And I am looking forward to learning more.

Thanks to all of you for making it sound so fun and easy. http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/smile.gif


Long Live the Penguin!!!!!

OOPS!

[Toaster]

Welcome aboard. Having fun is all that really matters. Once you explore the real capabilities of your system, you`ll not look at Micky$oft the same again.

[Xayd]

Yeah, if you're like me OOPS you'll get mad and uninstall/reinstall about 10 more times here in the next few months. Depending on your version you may have a bugger of a time getting everything configured and working like you want, but the nice thing is, once it works, it works. Say goodbye to the blue screens and illegal operations and M$ crap bloating up your kernel.

Last time I checked, that Unix box at the hotel I worked for (386mhz IBM server, 64 megs of ram, 15 terminals attached and running 24/7) hadn't been turned off in about 5 or 6 years. I used to blow the dust out of it about once a month, and we rebooted it *maybe* once every two months.

Stability is nice, definitely.

Xayd

[LawyerRon]

Don't get me started. Next thing you know, I'll be asking RedHat questions. I suggest the forum is not ready for that.

------------------
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves"

[Xayd]

Never know if ya hate it til ya actually try it Ron. You built/overclocked your own PC, that qualifies as enough of a tinkerer to get Linux workin' in my book.

Imagine the cash you could save in your office, for instance. An OS that costs 20 bucks, put it on 100 machines if you want, no licenses. Office suites that're free, plus the stability to run the entire operation with a reboot on average about once a week (just for safety's sake, of course, Linux boxes have been known to run for months without a reboot if pushed that far). Hell, you can even configure the desktop it to "look" and "act" like Windows for your secretary if ya want. Well, act except for the blue screens and illegal operations and memory overruns and what not http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/wink.gif.

Xayd

[This message has been edited by Xayd (edited 08-02-2000).]

[OOPS!]

Hi LawyerRon,

Xayd is right, For me it was very simple to install. Took a whole 15 minutes start to finish. The only trouble I had was with the modem. And that was my own fault, forgot to disable com2 in the Bios, Duh!!

I am running it as a duel boot with windoze, no trouble at all. I am getting ready to try some playing as soon as I get a little more comfortable with the command line.

Come on jump in, the water is great!!! You can do it!!! http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/biggrin.gif!!


OOPS!

[LawyerRon]

I warned you all............

------------------
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves"

[Toaster]

Ron,
You seem like a level headed fella. Give it a whirl, it costs little and i`m quite sure you will be amazed. So polluted our minds became with Micky$oft that we stopped "looking" for other alternatives. There is one however and it looks like a penguin but goes like a bat outta hell. The office suites are very well featured and very useful. A P-166-200 is almost ideal for a learning, blooming Linux lover. Then....well...then, you can be free of the shackles that bind us in dumb anguish to a monopoly.
We are here to answer your and others questions, were here to help.
RED-HAT is suggested because of documentation and stability without slowing the system with "candy".

[LawyerRon]

I hope this is not too basic, but exactly what is "Red Hat", and why do I want it?

------------------
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves"

[Dave22]

Red Hat is just a distribution of Linux (it's the company's name). Some of the other distributions are Caldera, Mandrake, and Corel. There are many others.

Red Hat is often mentioned because it is one of the most widely used distributions and is easy to install and use and is well supported.

[Statica]

If u are in no hurry, i'd wait a few weeks before going in for it .. kernel 2.4 will be out and so will the distribs using them. Right now, RHat has a beta of 7 with kernel 2.4testX; it might work fine

the enhancements of the new kernel are fenomenal

[Xayd]

For a "tried and true" version, though, I'd go with 6.2 if you do in fact choose Red Hat.

Basically you have several companies distributing "slightly modified" versions of the core OS. Red Hat is IMHO the most well documented of the distributions available now, and the easiest to get installed.

Easiest barring Mandrake 7 anyways, which I personally haven't tried. From what I've seen of it it's taking a stab at making "Winux", but I'd be skeptical of how well everything works, especially on non-standard hardware. But hey, that's the beauty of this stuff, only costs 20 or 30 bucks to try a new OS, and if you don't like it, oh well, get another one.

Xayd

[Xayd]

Just for background info Ron, Linux distributions are in architecture for a home user basically like DOS/Win 3.1

The OS itself can be used completely from the command line, but you have several desktop options to use, on top of the command line if you want to do so.

I'm not a hard core command line junkie personally. I always run a desktop, and just like Linux for stability.

Basically, you're looking at DOS/3.1 with the functionality that a 95/98 or NT OS has.

Why Linux instead of 95/98? Because a P.O.S. web browser (and the rest of the software you install) isn't integrated into the kernel. Because software costs nothing, and is more stable. Because you can configure EVERYTHING to work how you want it to. Because it handles memory efficiently, and doesn't come crashing down when one function fails.

It's a server OS at heart, but for the end user it's very feasible, because nothing beats server stability for personal use. When a program crashes, you get a message that "such and such has crashed due to whatever". Ok, no big deal, you restart that program and keep chuggin' along. No blue screens or "gotta reboot to get some memory back" or any of that.

Xayd

[SVTarHeel]

One quick question - what's involved in "upgrading" to the newer kernel? Do you install 6.2 now and then install 7.0 over it when available? Or is a reformat in order?

Thanks!

------------------
JEFF ô¿ô

[This message has been edited by SVTarHeel (edited 08-07-2000).]

[Toaster]

Hey Ron,
IMHO, Red-Hat is secure, stable, well supported and distributed by a reasonable company. The other "distros" such as Mandrake, are aimed at the folks who are deathly afraid of having to "learn" the nuances of Linux and be covered with "eye candy" and unparalleled ease of use. With this ease of use however, comes a reduction of performance and security.
Mr. Cling,
You stated big changes to the upcoming release of RH 7.0, details?

Ron, RH Linux comes in one form but with support added with the cost of the O/S. The standard version ships with all you need and E-mail support if we cant guide you.
For about the 25-30 buck area, you have all you need. If a friend has a copy, burn a copy for yourself, its legal and expected and part of the Linux growth.

Um...i`m gunna poke a bitta phun here....
fenominal <---?
Phenominal <---looks better...don`t it? http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Statica]

XayD:
Saying that you Linux is a win 3.xx/DOS type OS is a fallacy of enormous proportions; Linux is a true POSIX and the closest one can come to UNIX without trading functionality and security for userfriendliness. Win3.xx / DOS never came close to what Linux does, either in feel .. the ONLY thing that is similar are the colors on the screen .. at best [pardon my outright, disagreement].
Ron:
I still stand by my original statement, if you can wait for Linux, the 2.4.xx kernel is wayy better, Rhat 6.2 is the current stable, and if you have a good fast connxn it is FREE, and so are most of the s/w that come with it.

Toaster:
I am currently in the process of documenting the 2.4.xx kernel as best I can [www.linuxdruids.org : blatant developmental stage]; and am way behind ..

fenomenal: fi-'nä-m&-n&l : relating to or being a fenomenon
usage: without using extra characters on typing; for usage in a society that uses color and sulfur http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Ex-Static-Cling (edited 08-07-2000).]

[vitalstatistix]

SVTarHeel
you compile a kernel for ur need and install it. U never need to reformat(reinstall) a *nix system, unless you have lost the ROOT password/access or hardware failure.

How-to compile a kernel? read below link, http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Kernel-HOWTO.html

Above is a good discussion on building monolithic/modular kernel. Make sure you have a bootdisk handy just in case you have a problem with you new kernel http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/smile.gif

shud you have any questions, start a new thread, we wil try to help.

regards


gtfx

PS: i blv redhat 6.2 comes with 2.2.14 where as latest stable release is 2.2.16. 2.4 is just round the corner

PPS: btw, kernel compile is a "command line process" which as per some wise-crack := (read some expert postings above) is for JUNKIES *LOL*

[Xayd]

I was only suggesting architecture as similar. I.E., you can do everything the OS does from a command line, but the desktop is eye candy. Which it is. To a user who wants everyday tasks accessible from a graphical desktop (I include myself here), then the "layout" of the OS is reminiscent of DOS/3.1.

It's a GUI on top of a command line OS for the vast majority of us. This was my point, and it's accurate.

Xayd

[Xayd]

And speaking of "expert" statements, it's the "experts" who ::gasp:: charge money for their distributions that are making things user friendly for us. Hell, in some cases making them usable period.

Xayd

[Toaster]

hmmmmm....
Xrayd, maybe the overall "usability" is similar to DOS/win3.xx but thats it.
DOS/Win3.xx is a whole other ballgame.
DOS was always there doing the "footwork" and HAD to be there for Win3.xx to function. So, in essence, Win3.xx is simply a "GUI" that shielded the user from the command line.
DOS did the rudimn=entary memory management, all the file handling chores, and initiialized most of the devices prior to Win3.xx use. Drop DOS and Win3.xx could not function. If there is any similarity between an O/S and Linux, I would tend to think its the MAC O/S more then windows.

Phenominal- Amazing, extra-ordinary, stupendous, really phukking neat, outphukkingstanding....etc...etc....and so on.. http://www.pcmech.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Toaster (edited 08-08-2000).]

[Statica]

SVTarHeel:

Just an addendum to your system upgrade query, there are a few things that you should take into consideration:
<OL>
<LI>Think in terms of kernel versions rather than distribution versions; that will give u a more accurate picture
<LI>Be aware of what kernel you are upgrading and then choose the safest and shortest route to the upgrade .. for example this is what I would recommend
Say you wanted to upgrade version RHat6.1 -> RHat 6.2 .. 6.1 has kernel 2.2.12 while 6.2 has kernel 2.2.14 .. you could simply do a new kernel compilation [as per the HowTO documentation]; or you could patch your kernel 2.2.14->2.2.15->2.2.16 and you would have the same functionality as RHat version 6.2; of course upgrading from the CD would also put in newer RPMs/builds of whatever you had old.
The same holds true for the all of redhat v. 6.xx
<LI>When it comes to switching kernel major versions [2.2.xx vs 2.4.xx]; I would personally not recommend that route, from all my years with NIX. The reason being; 2.4.xx brings out a lot of modifications in the way Linux does things; and you would lose out on the enhancements .. in which case you are prolly looking to migrate your programs onto the new kernel/filesystem - be aware that the new distrib versions will contain some form of a JFS; I think caldera ships with Reiser .. whereas 2.4.xx finals will have a full blown ext3 .. at least.

Cheers .. if u have any further queries a new thread will allow us to help u better

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SVTarHeel:
One quick question - what's involved in "upgrading" to the newer kernel? Do you install 6.2 now and then install 7.0 over it when available? Or is a reformat in order?

Thanks!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Statica]

XayD:
Where do u come up with the concept of charging money to get it userfriendly? All distribs of Linux are and have been free, be it as userfriendly or useranimosity as you like. All you need to do is to be able to select what u want to install.
The GPL envisages for this kind of free exchange of software, even if it is a major OS upgrade.

[Xayd]

You don't get graphicall installations and auto-partion utilities on a CD for your first stab at Linux if you don't pay for it.

How many people would try Linux if they had to download and compile the sources. I'd take a stab and say one in a million each year.

How many will try it if they can buy it on a CD down at Best Buy. Many, many more.

Xayd

[Statica]

I urge you to actually downloading an ISO and then post what you find .. cos I really dont get your take on not getting grafical installations etc. when u download it!