Printable View
I've been meaning to install *nix for quite a while, but i don't know which version to use. i have pretty basic knowledge of *nix, and some suggestions on what version to install would really be appreciated. any good security or just general usage websites would be cool too.
Realy they are all the same thing, the only difference is what packages are installed, the type of init system, and distro specific tools (ie RH linuxconf).
Most would go for something like RH when starting out because it has user friendly system tools. Of course it also depends on just how much you want to learn. Most make the mistake of using all those system tools, and hanging around in X, which means they learned a lot about X, and using the system tools, but not much about how linux realy works.
My suggestion is to take whatever distro you want, but when installing, don't install X, or the system tools, (or if you install them don't use them). spend all your time in console only, doing everything manually (eventualy you learn how to automate things with scripts). This forces you to learn about the inner workings of the OS, where things are, and how they all function together. Once your comfortable in that then install X, and sit back comfortable that you know what is going on in the background. This may seem like getting in way over your head at the beggining, but you'll be better off in the long run.
Well, first of all, I think that the advices from deadpaperplate are greats !!
I just want to increase some archieves that could be good for you... like The Linux User´s Guide, Unix Bible and all of this stuffs.
I´m a newbie in Unix system too, but in case of doubt, the others from here can help you...
:thumbsup:
In response to "dead", he's right. RH sucks, Mandrake sucks, SuSE sucks. They all too much automation and "user friendliness". UNIX based systems are not meant to be 'user friendly". Learn something, us something with less or no autmation, I.E. Slackware or even Debian. Yes, you'll fumble around, and yes, you'll bother people with questions and it will be frustrating, but the speed of UNIX based systems, and the functionality come from it's seemly overdone complexity.
The number of "flavours" of UNIX is incredible. For something that is well supported and can be used free of charge, I would say try a free BSD variant (Open, Net, Free) or Linux. Since you have some basic UNIX knowledge already, you should be fine choosing either. But if you were to ask me personally, I would say choose Linux. Being the most widely used, you're likely to find more documentation and help on things when compared to other choices. Another thing which is nice is that Linux distributions, no matter which you use, are virtually the same exact thing. Learn one well and you've learned them all.
Now you need to choose which Linux distribution to use. This isn't that big of a decision here, since you can easily download another one if you're not happy with the one you happen to be using. Every person who has used Linux (hell, even those who haven't) have their own opinion on which distribution you should use. DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE. USE WHATEVER YOU WANT - STICK WITH WHAT YOU LIKE. The arguments are always pointless.
I'd like to end with how I learned Linux well. I installed Slackware many years ago without the X Window System and decided to make it the only OS I would use. This was extremely difficult to do, but it was the best decision that I ever made. This may not work for everyone, especially for anyone who enjoys games, but at least it's a given that you'll get very good, very quickly.
I could keep writing, but this is only a message board. Let me know how things go :)
What's that supposed to mean, J? Deadpaperplate only suggested not to install X at first... I don't see nothing wrong with any of those distro's, as long as you know what's going on in the background (that's what deadpaperplate said, not that RH, Mandrake and SuSE suck...). I never have thought of 'user-friendliness' as something bad...Quote:
In response to "dead", he's right. RH sucks, Mandrake sucks, SuSE sucks. They all too much automation and "user friendliness".
Not meant to be, as in INTENTIONALLY NOT user friendly???Quote:
UNIX based systems are not meant to be 'user friendly".
I really liked DOS, and I understood how it worked, but I was damn happy when Windows got released (well, not from the beginning). It's true the Windows GUI slows down your system, but copy and paste beats the hell out of copy c:\command\blablabla c:\dir1\dir2\dir3 .... when it comes to speed.
Same goes for Linux...
So Komodo, I'd go for deadpaperplate's advice...
I guess you're some kind of masochist...
Negative mad props to you, but I noticed an error. If you were truley running DOS you would not have a directory called C:\COMMAND\BLABLABLAQuote:
Originally posted by Negative
It's true the Windows GUI slows down your system, but copy and paste beats the hell out of copy c:\command\blablabla c:\dir1\dir2\dir3 .... when it comes to speed.
As noted DOS has an eight character limitation and BLALBLABLA is 9 characters..... FAT16...the good ole days..(of course this doesn't apply to Win9x and above, but that truley isn't DOS in its purest form either)
Oh yeah and I am going from Chat Nazi, to Chat Nazi on Strike (14 days, err 13 to go...)...
Damn, you got me there, Louie! BTW: BLALBLABLA, as you wrote it, is ten characters... :pQuote:
As noted DOS has an eight character limitation and BLALBLABLA is 9 characters..... FAT16...the good ole days..(of course this doesn't apply to Win9x and above, but that truley isn't DOS in its purest form either)
Damn my typos...oh well however you typed it was nine charcters.
Come on now!
Alright Louie, If you want to play that game =)
Assuming that Negatiff uses a Hex-Editor on the FAT to write his filenames
just like me, then he could make whatever filename he wanted. (Assuming
that he never runs scandisk or anything like that, and that he doesnt want
to access the file)
Hell, If he wanted, then he could completely delete the filename!
Furthermore, REAL dos used just FAT, FAT16 didnt come into the picture until Dos 3.3,
I dont know what you consider REAL dos to be, but
Just a few moths ago i needed to do some complex math, and my computer
was fried, so i set up a 486 with a 2.1 gb hard-drive, and it only had DOS 7.0.
Why is that any less dos then any other version?.
-8trak
haha, Chat Nazi that!!
And by "Just FAT"
I mean FAT12