which linux? - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: which linux?

  1. #21
    I started out with mandrake, but wanted to get into a more commandline interface than a GUI so after a few hours i reformatted again and got stuck into slackware and havent looked back.
    I had a bit of experience with online linux tuts and shells, so it was easier for me and i was familiar with DOS. But if your serious about linux, its best to get stuck into it straight away.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    20
    as a user of linux i recommend u to use the redhat distr.
    bcs it is easy to install
    can be installed as second os
    great text and GUI envir.

    i'm using it ,and it's great.

    there are several distr of linux:
    redhat
    mandrake
    suse
    go to http://www.linux.org/
    to find more

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    10
    well i agree with the others who say Red Hat or mandrake! they can configure many pieces of hardware them-self, so you haven't to configure them! but i don't like SuSe, sure, for me it was a good idea to test it because i have only a vaio notebook and a lot of trouble with the acpi (which works great under suse), but if you play around with your suse and have tuts on linux, it can be that things aren't @ the places described in the tut because suse makes a lot of things other than standard!

    also a great idea is knoppix, it configures also a lot him-self! and it is possible to test it from cd, and if you like it you can install it to disk! (there are tutorials out about this)

    i used debian now for a while but at the moment i have a distro named "College Linux" installed, which is also not that bad!

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2
    I might say that for beginners you should try Mandrake. However you might also try Red Hat. Debian's distribution is not bad, but is not as simple as the others. You also may try the BSD's distribution, but you need to have important notions in command line administration.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    106
    i just installed redhat 7.3, all i can say is 150 dollars for win xp , 1.50 for red hat (3 cdrs and 2.5hrs of dl) it was just as easy to install it seems just as pretty , browsing is faster for sure and it seems straight forward ,no complaints here

  6. #26
    Uhm, it's rather simple, REDHAT.

    Whatever you think of them they're the most user friendly, everything is available in binary for Redhat, go with them, no one has more support nor user-friendliness. I started on Mandrake, it was OK, but Redhat is what you want, just get it, and I'd suggest Redhat Linux 8.0 Unleashed.

  7. #27
    Gray Haired Old Fart aeallison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Buffalo, Missouri USA
    Posts
    888

    Talking

    Hey all,

    I have been watching, and I have read most, of these which flavor of *nix threads for quite some time now. I have a very good familiararity with DOS and windblows versions. Needless to say I am not very proud of Microsloth. I have been looking for an alternative to the ol winder lettin in those flies. I also have a MIPS processor based system ( collecting dust ) by Silicon graphics, that is runnig IRIX 8. I tried Red Hat most recently and never had any luck getting it working. I tried it with it on a second drive and had a bootloader that started Linux by default. I finally gave up and rebooted picking win2k and went to bed. I awoke the next morning to even more problems. It seems that win2k ate the linux boot partition over night. So I decided to uninstall RH in an effort to revive a doomed PC.

    Not!

    So, I will conclude this with a note to you statistical. Anything that "can" go wrong "will" go wrong, at the most inopportune moment. I for one highly reccomend using a seperate "box" to put your fav flavor on. This way if you f*** it all up it won't be your main box.

    Also peeps, I have an even more dumba** question. Is there a windows emulator available for linux that will allow me to play my favorite windows based games?
    I have a question; are you the bug, or the windshield?

  8. #28
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    RedHat and Mandrake use RPM's ( Mandrake was originally based upon RedHat )

    When Mandrake was first released, it was RedHat made a little easier for the novice, with KDE included ( which, at the time, RedHat did not include )

    The RPM packages are nice, especially for someone new to linux. Until you are used to compiling software yourself they make things much simpler ( IMHO ).
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kelowna, BC Canada
    Posts
    8

    Something to remember...

    You said, 'to make the final decision' - No one's making you make a decision, hehe.. you don't even have to. Linux has rockin' everything - networking, programming environments, graphics & progs (GIMP Yeah!), sound card support, smashing choice of GUIs and all that ****.. and even a few versions of quake, hehe...

    Windows.. has many many games... And good ones too.. but it's got it's problems.. they all do.. every distro and windows ver..

    Linux runs on damn near anything... so if you want to experiment.. go buy yourself a cheap 233 MMX, with (or throw) an old ATI RAGE 64 or 128 bit-based (All-In-Wonder PRO) board in there, and a 16-bit ISA.. and everything'll be as straight forward as can be for installation and config options.. and a linux distro like Debian will SCREAM on it compared to a i586 specific distro like redhat 8.x. You'd have to drop to redhat 7.1 or something to get i386 kernels outta the box, which is a headache for a new user..

    That kinda machine would cost you 200 bux tops in the paper to buy.. and you can leave your 10 or 20 gig windoze box as is.. windoze is a bitch, it needs the memory and processing power.. in order to actually enjoy windows, you might as well let it have the bigger better box.. all that.. might as well just have two to start with, to get you trained. Chances are your browser under blackbox or a lightweight window manager might outperform IE on the faster machine anyways, hehe...

    So don't make a choice.. acheive a zen-like balance, hehe


    I'd hate

    ****16-Bit ISA Soundcard is what I meant.. a traditional AWE 64 works real good...

    there is a a couple of windows emulators ... WINE + WINEX (two programs.. ones' the emulation 'layer' and the other is like a directX layer, but, not.... functionally the same... one allows you to play solitare, two are needed for diable II or Ultima Online or whatever.. and your other option... Run BOCHS or VMware and simulate an entire PC in memory and an area of your disks, install windows + direct x to that and then all your games and stuff... but both options have there problems at this point.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Hey statistical Let us know how the installl goes. I foundly rember the nightmare of my first Linux install an HP386 and 200 slackware floppies

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •