preparation for redhat installation?

[traineerichie]

I have never used linux before and a book recomended redhat, the system is currently running windows 95 - how do I prepare for installation of linux?

I have the installation disks from the redhat ftp and I have made a boot floppy too, but I am unsure of how to get the system ready for installation -

any help for a beginner would be greatly appreciated -

cheers.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Before you install you need to acquire some information and make some decisions. Most of the the information you can obtain by starting windows, clicking on the start menu > control panel > system and then you check the general tab to determine the kind of processor and amount of ram. You then click on the device manager tab and print or copy everything. From the devise manager you will learn the type and number of HDs, the make and model of you CD-ROM, the kind of mouse you have installed, the make and model of your video adapter, the make and model of your soundcard, the make and model of your NIC and whether you have any scsi adapters.

Armed with all of that information, you need to decide whether you are going to do a dual boot system or install Linux to the entire hard drive. Letting Linux install to the entire hard drive is easiest, and I think best, but a lot of folks want to dual boot. You have to make some decisions as to how you are going to use the computer. Is it going to be a workstation or a server?

Do all of that and write back, or take another look at the book you mentioned.

CH

[MaXimum SMOKE]

With the above information, that C.H. has mentioned, you will want to consider the resources available on your machine. As people have been looking for more and more things in their linux systems , the demand for faster processors, bigger hard drives, and more ram have also increased, and you want to make sure, if you have an older machine, you don't get the latest distro, that could seriously be 'bogged down', by all the extra 'eye - candy', in the latest releases. Red Hat is one of the best distributions for finding a lot of books and articles . If this isn't going to be connected to the web, and is an older machine, you may wish to select an older version. If it is going to be connected to the web, without a firewall, then security of a newer version also becomes an issue.

[jglen490]

I would beg to differ with putting an older distro on an older machine. With a newer distro you get a more recent kernel, you get better hardware support. you get a better choice of what to install. If you have older hardware, or limited RAM, or slower bus speeds, and things of that nature, then you must always make decisions about what to install. But you are almost always better off with a newer distro.

When I installed Linux on my old IBM TP365XD laptop (P120/72MB/2.1GB) I put up Mandrake 8.2, which at that time was the latest and greatest Mandrake. It installed without a hitch and picked up all the old hardware. I tried KDE 3.0.1, and while it was stable, it was slow -- which is a direct reflection of the old hardware. So I went down a step, in weight not function, from the KDE desktop to IceWM. It works great, is still stable, and loads up faster (again, relative to the hardware). The point is that a newer distro has a better installer, has better hardware support, a more recent kernel, and gives you better choices.

[MaXimum SMOKE]

I understand what you're saying, but the user also said this was a Win 95 machine. Most of the folks I've spoken with (meaning new users, with no one around to help them), wouldn't even know what X interfaces are available, except the default one on their first install. This could be a a 486, at this point I don't like to scare people away from Linux either. For terms of functionality, I kind of looked at RH 6.1- 6.2 , as the 'Win 95 of the RH line. I also understand the implications of putting an older OS frontline to the web, and don't recommend it, at all. Athough far fewer than some other OSes, there still are security exploits out there for older Linux OSes. When Xfree86 took their last major revision, (Think that was 3 to 4?) it started requiring some real horsepower for what a lot of folks would consider effective operation. Probably the better course would have been to ask what the user's hardware was first. Sometimes, for people that are 'on their own', the best course is a book/cd deal from their local bookseller.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I happen to agree with both of you. If traineerichie has appropriate equipment the latest distro is always the best for the new user. On the other hand, most new users want to install Linux on an old machine with minimal ram and processor speed. I personally started on a K-6 500 with 64 mg and Linux Redhat 6.0. I wasn't about to put it on my "good" machine. Redhat 6.0 was a good introduction to Linux. It wasn't nearly as much fun as any of the current distros, but I am reasonably sure that if I had tried to put Redhat 8.0 on my old K-6 with 64 meg, I would have run from Linux as fast as I could. I want folks to have a good first experience.

Of course, I recognize that Linux of any version runs well with any pentium class machine and 64 mg, and the x interface is what demands the horsepower. Gnome or KDE in their latest versions demand an amount comparable to Windows XP.

CH

[traineerichie]

cheers for helping me out - just to clear up the system I wish to use I believe is a pentium 133mhz with 95mb RAM and a 3gig hd- I was going to install redhat 8.0 - but I think I burned the disks incorrectly or the download corrupted the files so I have to start again. Is redhat 8 a good choice or would something else better suit the spec?
cheers again

[Statica]

RedHat 8.0 is way too bloated / requires a lot more than what you are offering it. Like most, you will get disillusioned with Linux if you use it like this .. much like trying to install XP on that system. I'd suggest throwing in more memory / processor or moving to an older version of Linux

[traineerichie]

which version do you suggest? Also bearing in mind I have never used or experienced linux.

[Computer Hobbyist]

traineerichie,

Redhat 6.1 or 6.2 might be good choices. The alternative would be a bigger faster machine.

CH

[Statica]

If you're new at Linux, my guess is that you are going to try to get into a GUI intensive session, a console just isnt going to appeal to you, as with most new users. I would really recommend upgrading your CPU to something faster and throwing in more memory. Your hard drive might not leave you too much of manoeuverability, but for argument's sake we can assume that you will be able to juggle enough packages to do a temporary install.

Contrary to what jglen* had to say, I differ. Newer distros, have better hardware support - YES. but better hardware support usually entails better support for newer hardware. Hardware support across the board for older hardware, rarely if ever evolves, and if there is a fix it usually is all included in a stable distribution. With the increasing hardware support, Linux now evolves to run better on newer hardware. Lets face it, if Linux did the same things it did 3 years ago, but just does it on newer hardware, I wouldnt be here on my Linux soapbox. So in essence, the requirements have also grown for newer distributions. The other factor is that since Linux can run on a lot of better hardware, it comes bundled with more stuff, to give you a better bang.

Of course, having said that, you could still get a good feel for the distribution with an older kernel and an older distribution, and then see if you just want to upgrade the kernel (yes its possible to start with an old aching Linux distribution, and then just upgrade components you will be using but its not for a new Linux user.

I've seen it way too often, even on these boards, user wants to try Linux, finds an old machine, loads a new distribution .. Linux crawls, GUI keeps crashing .. etc etc. user comes back and tells us all how Linux sux

[jglen490]

Originally posted by Statica RedHat 8.0 is way too bloated / requires a lot more than what you are offering it. Like most, you will get disillusioned with Linux if you use it like this .. much like trying to install XP on that system. I'd suggest throwing in more memory / processor or moving to an older version of Linux

RedHat 8.0 is fine, as would be Mandrake 9.0, or the latest Suse, or Slack, or any other recent distro. Again, even though the latest distros tend to come with a lot of additional software, you are not REQUIRED to load all that. The bloat comes with whatever you actually load as a part of your installation.

You have a machine that is quite capable, not like a gigahertz processor machine, but certainy capable within its constraints. Just be careful what you choose to load. You want some sort of GUI or desktop? Then choose something lighter in weight than KDE or Gnome. Something like fluxbox, blackbox, IceWM, enlightenment -- whatever may be available as a window manager on your distro. You want word processing? KOffice works nicely as does abiword. OpenOffice.org is probably a bit much, but certainly not impossible.

Please note that I talk about these things from my own experience. I CAN run KDE and OpenOffice.org on my P120 laptop, but it's also more enjoyable to run something less weighty. It's kinda like the beer commercial where the two beer drinkers argue about "tastes great/less filling". You can have both in a more recent distro as well as the benefits of a more modern kernel, better kernel modules, and therefore better hardware support.

[Statica]

All that is well and good, and we all know how to lighten a Linux install .. now the question is how is a new user to know what to install and what not to? You expect a new Linux entrant to be able to sift through the packages and choose englightenment out of the possible choices?
Your post is from experience, which is something traineerichie does not have in the Linux world. Hence my recommendation of using a stock distribution of lower requirements (my first choice) or get a machine with more juice.

To continue with your nice point .. how's a person having his/her first beer to know what the difference is. Chances are that the person gets a "beer" before wanting to compare it with a light beer. S/He's not going to want to throw away half that beer mug to make it "light" .. but take it in as is.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I don't think we need to beat this matter any further, the best solution is for a newbie to install the latest version of Linux on the best machine he has so he can make a direct comparison with the latest version of Windows. Most of the folks who conclude "Linux sux" are trying to run the latest version of Linux on an old machine on which they wouldn't think of installing Windows XP.

If I installed Windows XP on my old 166 K-6 (the machine I use here at the office) I would no doubt conclude Windows XP is a dog. As it is my old machine has been maximized for Windows 98 se and runs my wordprocessor, browser, and all my old fashioned windows 98 applications well. If I were to upgrade much I would no doubt need a new, far more powerful, machine.

CH

[jglen490]

I don't think we need to beat this matter any further, the best solution is for a newbie to install the latest version of Linux on the best machine he has so he can make a direct comparison with the latest version of Windows.

I don't know about the need to "beat this matter", but I am glad that we can agree about using the latest version of Linux .

I have RH 5.2, RH 6.0, MDK 8.0, and MDK 8.2 at home. In running through these distros, not only have they evolved and matured from version to version, but they simply work better in each newer version. The installers are better behaved with each newer version, the newer ones offer better default configurations and offer more and better alternative configurations, the newer distros have better tools for recognizing and configuring a broader range of hardware.

You'd think that an older distro would be in some respect "closer" to older hardware and therefore support the older hardware better. But that simply isn't the case, because older distros are more "leading edge" relative to the older hardware. Distros, kernels, and driver modules do in fact evolve over time and tools change, also -- quite often, but not always, for the better.

On the flip side, newer distros do tend to offer more software and require that the user make more "bloat" versus "desirable" decisions in terms of what to load. No distro that I know of "requires" that everything offered be loaded. This means that the first time into a new distro, a user must pay close attention to what the installer is doing and what it is asking. The astute new user will study and will ask questions. Even the most astute will make mistakes and need help -- and will come here to get their questions answered and that's a good thing because we all learn.