Newbie looking for advice on Linux distribution
in [Setup]
|
From: Alan Mackenzie on 15 Feb 2010 06:33 FBWNDR <fletchbites(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > I am new to Linux and to this group. I used Linux in 2004 (Red hat), > and so I do have some familiarity with the operating system. As many > people are, I am now faced with having to install a new windows OS or > switching to open source software. I have to use windows at my job, > but I don't intend to get windows 7 for my home computer. > I am a relatively advanced computer user. I'm an engineer with many > years' programming experience (C, VBA, Basic, some assembly, Ladder > Logic). Currently, I use programming softwares for PLCs, > microprocessors and VBA, and an old C compiler. I don't use the > computer for entertainment or videos. But I do use MP3s. Okay, > having said all that, I would appreciate it if someone would recommend > a linux distribution for me. I really don't know what the differences > are. It would be a big help if someone were to recommend a > distribution which would suit my needs. Whatever distribution you try, equip yourself with a lot of patience before you start. There are often niggly little things (lots of them) to sort out before your machine is in the state you'd like it. Which distribution? With your skills, practically any. :-( If you just want it up and running ASAP, probably Ubuntu. If you want to immerse yourself in the technical aspects, go for Gentoo (you compile your own binaries). Or, why not try the "distribution chooser" at <http://www.zegeniestuios.net/ldc>. It's fun, and seems to work reasonably. > Thanks for your help. No problem! > FB -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 15 Feb 2010 06:56 On Feb 15, 1:11 am, Stefan Patric <n...(a)this.address.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:59:54 -0800, Keith Keller wrote: > > CentOS aims to be a binary clone of RHEL. It basically strips out any > > proprietary RH items (mostly logos and mentions of RedHat), builds its > > own packages, and redistributes that. It, like RHEL, is intended to be > > stable, but is sometimes a little (or more than a little) behind the > > latest releases of software. > > Didn't RHEL develop (evolve) out of the work done initially creating Red > Hat? I wouldn't call it a binary clone. It's a straightforward binary recompilation of most of RHEL, with trademarks replaced and a few tweaks to allow freeware software management rather than licensed control, and doesn't bother witth the "RHN" or RedHat Network tools. I actually prefer CentOS in a number of ways: that piece of "up2date dressed in grandma's clothing" known as the "yum-rhn-plugin" that RedHat uses is a serious flaw in RHEL's software management, as is their mishandling of the publication of openoffice and virtualization tools as part of separate software "channels". And CentOS had DVD images long, long, long before RHEL did. If you need to run a few test environments for RHEL, just use CentOS and avoid the licensing issues. Re-install with RHEL when you need the commercial support for them. > > Fedora amounts to a permanent devel version of RHEL, sponsored by RH. It > > is not intended to be ''stable'', and unless a user understands that > > Fedora is basically a beta or alpha version I would not suggest it to > > new linux users unless they absolutely needed the latest version of a > > particular piece of software. > > I've been using Fedora since Fedora Core 3. 1 & 2 were unstable, true. > Really problematical. Those CDs hit the trash fast, but since 3, it has > been quite stable, very usable. And given that RHEL is now over 3 years old, it's the only way to get support for contemporary open source tools in the RedHat software line. I'm actually quite incensed at RedHat about this. The leap from RHEL 5 to whatever RHEL 6 turns out to be is going to be so large that one may as well consider jumping to Ubuntu or SuSE in terms of compatibility and difficulty of porting software. > Yes, Fedora is development, cutting edge (for Linux anyway) software, but > if you stick with the "Final" release and not use the RCs (Release > Candidates), it is just as stable as any other "stable" Linux release. > (And a hell of a lot more stable than any release of Windows. ;-)) > > My systems ran 24/7 and were only shutdown for cleaning or to add or > upgrade hardware. I never had any failures due to the OS. The only > stability problems I've had is currently with the 64-bit alpha release of > Flash, which crashes every one-in-a-while bringing down the browser, but > not the OS, Fedora 12. I've had issues, but I tend to stress systems. As leading edge software, it can have back-porting issues when other, older software hasn't kept up to date. (Don't get me going on porting MusicBrainz to current Apache servers: Musicbrainz still uses Apache 1.3!!!!)
From: Moe Trin on 15 Feb 2010 14:57 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article <xA5en.56433$4p5.44040(a)newsfe22.iad>, Stefan Patric wrote: >Didn't RHEL develop (evolve) out of the work done initially creating >Red Hat? Red Hat Commercial Linux is a complete operating system based on the Linux kernel. It is easy to install -- the installation script can walk you through the process in as little as 15 minutes. The installation system is very flexible -- you can install and uninstall individual program ``packages'' with a couple clicks of your mouse button. It is easy to maintain -- package installations can be verified and corrected. Marc Ewing 5 June 1995 Oh, wait - you said _Enterprise_ Linux. RHCL was also known as "mothers-day" and "1.1" with a 1.2.11 kernel. That was the first one we evaluated, eventually selecting 2.1 which was released in October of that year. Support was expensive, and by RHL5.x we had transitioned to the GPL version sold by InfoMagic or Cheapbytes. The first RHEL was a repackaged RHL 6.2 - main difference was the support levels. The first version actually _labeled_ as Red Hat Enterprise Linux was 2.1 (March 2002). which was a branch off the RHL 7.1 tree - the beta was redhat-7.1.91AS released about a month before the redhat-7.2.92 beta named 'skipjack' that became 7.3. >I've been using Fedora since Fedora Core 3. 1 & 2 were unstable, >true. Really problematical. Those CDs hit the trash fast, but since >3, it has been quite stable, very usable. We never even installed RH9 and 8.0 was limited to special cases. Fedora has always been to volatile for our taste. Old guy
From: Ed Kenny on 16 Feb 2010 12:38
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:33:42 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > FBWNDR <fletchbites(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> I am new to Linux and to this group. I used Linux in 2004 (Red hat), >> and so I do have some familiarity with the operating system. As many >> people are, I am now faced with having to install a new windows OS or >> switching to open source software. I have to use windows at my job, >> but I don't intend to get windows 7 for my home computer. > >> I am a relatively advanced computer user. I'm an engineer with many >> years' programming experience (C, VBA, Basic, some assembly, Ladder >> Logic). Currently, I use programming softwares for PLCs, >> microprocessors and VBA, and an old C compiler. I don't use the >> computer for entertainment or videos. But I do use MP3s. Okay, having >> said all that, I would appreciate it if someone would recommend a linux >> distribution for me. I really don't know what the differences are. It >> would be a big help if someone were to recommend a distribution which >> would suit my needs. > > Whatever distribution you try, equip yourself with a lot of patience > before you start. There are often niggly little things (lots of them) > to sort out before your machine is in the state you'd like it. > > Which distribution? With your skills, practically any. :-( If you > just want it up and running ASAP, probably Ubuntu. If you want to > immerse yourself in the technical aspects, go for Gentoo (you compile > your own binaries). > > Or, why not try the "distribution chooser" at > <http://www.zegeniestuios.net/ldc>. It's fun, and seems to work > reasonably. > >> Thanks for your help. > > No problem! > >> FB I have tried various distros over the years, and I always gave up due to various problems, notably hardware recognition issues. Last week I began looking at Ubuntu netbook remix. I downloaded it and installed it on my netbook. It picked up all my hardware and booted into a fully functional system, with only minor tweaking. This week, all my computers are running ubuntu. I have 7 machines here, and it installed on all of them with only one problem. My main laptop had the harddrive trashed by the installer. Luckily it was all backed up, but my Vista 64 was trashed. I was fuming, but I decided to continue installing Ubuntu. I got it installed and it is running flawlessly. Of course, nothing is perfect. I am a musician, and I like to do some multitrack recording. THis is the one area where Linux is very weak. I had to leave my DAW machine untouched, so that I could continue to use my studio. I'm not saying I can't record audio on a linux box, just that it is much more limited than Windows. I could just be missing things, and I'm aware that there is always a learning curve with any new endeavor, but it seems that the capabilities just aren't there. We'll see..... |