.:: Bots United ::.  
filebase forums discord server github wiki web
cubebot epodbot fritzbot gravebot grogbot hpbbot ivpbot jkbotti joebot
meanmod podbotmm racc rcbot realbot sandbot shrikebot soulfathermaps yapb

Go Back   .:: Bots United ::. > Developer's Farm > General Programming
General Programming Help others and get yourself helped here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#11)
Onno Kreuzinger
aka: memed / Server Admin
 
Onno Kreuzinger's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 705
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: germany
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 01-02-2004

Hi,

for the impatient who want's to try out linux knoppix is a good choice, no need for hd install,good software choice and no non-standard software (debian based).It also has put much effort into beeing a GUI system.

for the developer who "just" want's a development system for linux i suggest using Mandrake, it has very good i18n support, in contrast to suse or debian it comes shipped with a lot of additional tools for management, so any tip/howto suitable for redhat or suse will work. including grafical, menudriven console admin tools and a (one!) centralized gui tool for hardware and system configuration.

The issue of hardware not beeing detected, can be a real showstopper, this applies mostly to new gfx hardware and (cheap) multimedia stuff. as soon as the hardware is common there is usually a driver avail; but unlike windows old standards come seldomly osolet, so e.g. for printing there are 3 driver models, mostly interoperatable by middleware drivers. Also the distro developer does not update each kernel version, so if you dare to compile a kernel better only use knoppix :-). From my experinence i would say forget what you "know" from windows, linux is a trial and error system, if you loose motivation when it does not work it nothing for you ;-)
If you like to setup a system which has no need for updates or re-installs go for linux and install all development stuff, i promisse you will only have to add software when you want something new, and this is unlike windows, even for a redhat system.

To correct the belive linux ain't good for multimedia, take a look at my favourite linux software VDR, it allows for allmost everything related to DVB, DVD and Divx: recording, creation, converting and replay.
All controlled with a IR infront of the TV :-)
See the main plugins developped for it, to see why even the german press sees it generations ahed of MS media center or alikes.

Cheers memed

/* i run numerus linux servers, BUT i use a windows as desktop client, i have to have Office for my business, and CS for my recreation, i ain't a evangelist for linux, i just love running systems */

p.s. any developer/coder going into linux as dev. system: feel free to ask for resources/help (where to get rpm's, how get XYZ compiling) for hardware questions i can help in hard cases [assist in bulding kernel ]

Last edited by Onno Kreuzinger; 01-02-2004 at 12:44..
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#12)
Cephas
Guest
 
Status:
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

As for auto detecting hardware, its best to just download the driver modules form the manufactures website, and then load them at startup. Printers and network cards are basically the only hardware thats not really supported for linux by manufactures, but the linux Kernel will handle the driver aspect of them.

The best way is to read a guide on configuring a kernel, and build it yourself, to the needs of your system. After you build your first Kernel, its really fast and easy from then on.

I still recommend Slackware once you learn the basics, its not much harder than the major distro's but will teach you even more as to how an OS operates.

I myself used Redhat for about a month, then switched to Slackware about a year and a half ago. Now i'm running a Stage1 Gentoo install thats smooth as silk. I still dual boot Win2K for my gaming addiction though.

Last edited by Cephas; 02-02-2004 at 06:57..
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#13)
botmeister
Ex-Council Member
 
botmeister's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,090
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

Thanks for all the advice! There's quite a few Linux distribution packages available and they all look good, and it seems they are all good, otherwise there would be a definite opinion towards one or the other. I figure I'll take some time to find out which version suits me best. It's probably a good idea to start with the simplest, like Knoppix, just to get my head wrapped around LInux quickly, then try out a few of the others that were mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanhendriks
( i am downloading a Debian distro , latest stable. With 100kb sec. So it will take a while to grab all 7 cd's...)
Instead of downloading all 7 CD's (as I did), there's supposed to be a method to install from an internet connection. When I get to it I'll be trying that out instead of messing around with my CD burner all day.


Maker of the (mEAn) Bot.Admin Manager

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#14)
Pierre-Marie Baty
Roi de France
 
Pierre-Marie Baty's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,049
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 46°43'60N 0°43'0W 0.187A
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

Since I am a hardcore POSIX integrist, and also a BSD freak, when it comes to Linux I can only bare the sight of a Slackware, eventually a Debian. There are several reasons that make me dislike one thing or two in Linux.

First, it's a MESS. The base Linux system, the kernel and the GNU utilities that are at its core are good stuff, but the problem is that since 1996/97 when Linux started to be THE fashion word in the mouths of the commercials, many distros ambitiously realized they could hit other customers than the aware sysadmin, and they put a lot (too much) effort in simplifying their user interfaces. Obviously all of them took a different route, and none of them managed to set up a potable standard. That's why one thing you MUST BE AWARE when you learn Linux, is the knowledge of how to make a difference between what is REALLY Linux, really standard, POSIX-compliant and all, and what is part of the myriads of layers of proprietary crap that the distros have stacked up with years. Examples ? YaST, RPM packages, /etc/init.d, SysV runlevels, the /opt hierarchy, userland binaries in /usr instead of /usr/local, non-standard logins, non-standard init and RC scripts, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The real Linux isn't an user-friendly clickodrome. The real Linux is pretty close to what is Slackware, that is, a command-line installer, the strict minimum to run the system, and all the other stuff is not only optional, but also you have to install it yourself by hand, following the standards as much as possible. This is exactly how the BSDs work too. The advantage is that once you know how to deal with a Slackware, you know how to deal with ALL the linuxes (and also all the Unixes). On the other hand, if you install a Knoppix or "Dead Rat" push-button clickodrome, chances are that you'll be stuck to this system forever and that you'll be unable to get your hands deeply enough in the system, where the real things happen.

Only Slackware and Debian made the choice to stay basic enough by default to stick with the standards (and I believe only Slackware still has a command-line installer). The advantage is that these systems are really ROCK solid, since everything has its place and there's a place for each thing, which you as the system administrator have to know and put to work according to the standards - that's to say you always KNOW what you are doing. It's a great thing to know things work, and it's an even greater thing to know why. Frankly, if I wanted to learn Linux again, I'd go with these two - but be aware that you'll be landing in another world, really.

On the other hand, if you're afraid of the system, or if you can't imagine a computer can work without a mouse attached to it, go with the popular distros, the ones with the larger user bases.



RACC home - Bots-United: beer, babies & bots (especially the latter)
"Learn to think by yourself, else others will do it for you."

Last edited by Pierre-Marie Baty; 02-02-2004 at 20:14..
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#15)
botmeister
Ex-Council Member
 
botmeister's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,090
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

PMB, that's what I'm looking for!!! Linux without all the proprietory non standard muck stuck on top.

I'm not interested in a Linux distribution that tries to be a Windows, since I'm getting rid of Windows as a server because of all the flaws it has (will continue to use it as a desktop OS however).

Although Windows does have it's good points, IMO it is seriously flawed fundamentally because it is a not a standard, it is an internal and external twisted mess which is full of bugs (and always will be unless the whole damn thing is completely redesigned), it changes significantly with every new release, it has poor security, it is a CPU and memory hog, it tries to make an idiot out of me by hiding away everything and trying to think for for me (I can't get to the guts of it, and I can't modify it, and the registry is total chaos, not to mention the DLL hell), and it is overly complex with many thousands of features I have no need for (and am not even aware of).

So, in a nutshell, a bare bones Linux that conforms to a standard is what I'm looking for. I don't even need a GUI if I'm running a server, which is what I will be doing with it for the most part. I'm very much used to command lines since that's how I started off when I first studied computer science, I'm an old timer compared to most of you guys.

So, Slackware and Debian seem to be your choice, which is interesting since I've considered these two as most likely to fit my needs. The use of Knoppix is just to get going quickly with something, the hard part comes later.

Now, you bring up another question. Should I even bother with Linux since you mention BSD? I'm looking at the website of FreeBSD right now. In the meantime, any opinions on BSD would be nice.


Maker of the (mEAn) Bot.Admin Manager

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#16)
stefanhendriks
RealBot Author
 
stefanhendriks's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,088
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

i stopped downloading the debian cd's, as i suddently realized i don't have a machine to test Linux on... rofl


Author of RealBot, "Arrakis" and "Dune 2 - The Maker" | co-Founder of Bots-United | Fundynamic | Blog | E-Mail me
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#17)
Onno Kreuzinger
aka: memed / Server Admin
 
Onno Kreuzinger's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 705
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: germany
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

Hi,
well BSD is "the old mans linux", but beware it has the daemon inside, no neat penguin walking around

read this, it's a must read if you want to go into BSD:
http://docs.freebsd.org/doc/3.4-RELE...c.html#AEN3561
[you know Douglas Adams, don't you..]

in BSD you will leave mainstream and some old men are very unflexible, but it is far more powerfull then linux by default is.

oh and for the distro stuff, allways make a choice you will want to engage. i allways used redhat systems, so im pretty biased

Cheers

Last edited by Onno Kreuzinger; 02-02-2004 at 22:55..
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#18)
Cephas
Guest
 
Status:
Posts: n/a
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 02-02-2004

BSD is the best for servers(in general), BUT it doesn't even have as much software support or hardware support that linux has. Sure MOST linux software will run on BSD and vice versa, but its not guarenteed unless you compile it from source code yourself.

As for the bare bones and most standard linux distro's, there are more than just Slack and Debian(<-still a major distro), they are the most popular, but Gentoo, Chainsaw, Arch, Dettu[X], and Core are amoung the most minimalist and fastest linux systems out there. Gentoo and Dettu[X] are prolly the hardest systems to install, and Dettu[X] is only for the linux Guru's that live in linux(no offense to those linux guru's). Gentoo is not only command line install, but a Stage1 install doesn't even use a setup program, its all done with source code and a generic compiler.

Sure the major distro's have become way overbloated just like winblows, but the core linux distro's are still out there that use source code and .tgz files to get all their work done.

Even though i'd love to see a newb staring at a command prompt from a gentoo boot disc waiting for a setup program to open, I still recomend people to start with a major distro, such as Debian to learn the basics.
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#19)
botmeister
Ex-Council Member
 
botmeister's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,090
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 03-02-2004

Ok, it would seem that BSD is not for me at this point. I prefer to go more main stream and most people seem to be using Linux not BSD.

If I understand things right, probably the best route for a minimalist/purest like me to go, is to start with Debian because I am not a Linux guru in the slightest and the installation process is considered to be simpler than the other minimal distros.

Does this sound about right?


Maker of the (mEAn) Bot.Admin Manager

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
  
Reply With Quote
Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
Old
  (#20)
Pierre-Marie Baty
Roi de France
 
Pierre-Marie Baty's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,049
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 46°43'60N 0°43'0W 0.187A
Default Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's - 03-02-2004

Quote:
Originally Posted by botmeister
Now, you bring up another question. Should I even bother with Linux since you mention BSD? I'm looking at the website of FreeBSD right now. In the meantime, any opinions on BSD would be nice.
According to me, OpenBSD is the best OS in the world. Slash Period.

http://www.openbsd.org/

BSDs have a somewhat different development concept than Linux. Whereas Linux is just a kernel regularly pushed forward under the arbitrary authority of Mr Torvalds, the system that is built on top of it, which we call GNU/Linux, is in fact a merry conglomerate of weird stuff from all horizons. Most of the system base comes from the GNU project (which aims itself at producing a 100% GNU OS, they currently lack just a trustable kernel), and all the rest of the system is a collection of packages randomly picked on the net here and there. There is no real authority in how a Linux system is updated, packaged or audited (is it? can it be?)
A BSD on the other hand, is a minimalistic, yet fully featured Unix, whose development is centered around a core team of "project leaders", who manage, audit and commit changes to the source code. Everybody is welcome to contribute in the development, but unlike in Linux, in BSD your code will be audited by the project leaders before it is committed to the official CVS. In OpenBSD for example, the project leader Theo DeRaadt periodically supervises full sanity checks over the whole source tree, down to auditing every single line of code before validating it, be it in the kernel, in the userland code, or in the official ports. Such a policy, although very demanding, has made OpenBSD the MOST stable AND secure operating system in the world. I know no other operating system which is said to be more stable or more secure against attacks than this one.

There is mostly three "branches" of BSD: FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. All three were derived from the original 4.4BSD UNIX from the University of Berkeley. Actually, whereas Linux is an UNIX clone (Linux Is Not UniX), the BSDs *are* UNIX, in the sense that they are the only depositaries of the original BSD/UNIX code which was given by AT&T to the University of Berkeley.

FreeBSD aims to be the fastest UNIX ever for the Intel architecture. It does a pretty good job with it already. It is also the most popular of the BSD (probably because of it). Unfortunately some will argue that this goal forced FreeBSD into technological choices that were not in favor of portability, like for example the absence of emulation of the SCSI layer for ATAPI drives. But FreeBSD has a wide user base, and an impressive number of ports (collection of patches to apply to some source code to have it compile and run on your BSD).

NetBSD's goal is to be the most widely spread of the BSDs, in terms of portability. If you have a gaming console or any weird sort of embedded device, chances are that it can run NetBSD. Not counting the fact that it is fun to install NetBSD on your favourite coffee machine, this policy made the NetBSD developers great standard-crafting guys, and this operating system the ideal alternative for all the old internet servers running on prehistoric hardware some proprietary OS that the evolution of the Internet is dooming to abandon.

OpenBSD, the last one, initially forked from NetBSD when Theo DeRaadt who is probably one of the most paranoid programmers in the world had an argument with the NetBSD developers about the fact that they should spend more time auditing their code and fixing the existing holes than forcefully trying to port it to any single architecture out there. Ten years ago he took the NetBSD source tree, got rid of a good half of the branches, and only kept those which were the most heavily tested and debugged. Several coders joined him and they launched OpenBSD whose goal is to be (and they are already) the world's #1 secure operating system. Not only it is already the most secure OS in the world, but the countless security audits they did in the code made them discover (and fix) virtually all the bugs left from previous audits, and this had the side effect to make OpenBSD *also* the world's #1 stable operating system (see http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html).

The BSDs have a kernel-level binary emulation of most of the other UNIX-like operating system, including Linux (ELF and a.out), Solaris, AIX, and others. They are able to run Linux binaries provided you set up a special directory tree in which you will put a minimal amount of Linux libraries that will look like if a mini-Linux system was installed in a subdirectory of your BSD machine. People have reported to run Half-Life servers on FreeBSD and OpenBSD machines.

The BSDs also have a collection of ports and packages. The "ports" are sets of patch files that make you automatically download the right source code for the right version for a software you want to install on your BSD box, then automatically patch the source code with the needed changes to make it run on BSD, compile, package and install. For example, if you want to run the GNU midnight commander on your BSD box, look if there is already a "port" made for it in the ports tree ; if so, your job will be made simple: locate the makefile, hit Make, and enjoy. A "port" that has been compiled for a particular architecture (x86, Alpha, mips, etc.) is called a "package". A package is in fact just a .tgz (tar-gzip) file, which is a sort of big zip file that you unpack in your system's root directory, and everything will land at its place, ready to run.

Base system binaries are in /bin
Base kernel binaries are in /sbin
Userland/system binaries are in /usr/bin
Userland/kernel binaries are in /usr/sbin
All system configuration files are centralized in /etc
Same scheme for libraries and include files
Everything that is installed by the user, i.e. that is not part of the base system, should go to /usr/local (e.g, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib, /usr/local/etc, and so on.)

With BSD you also have an immediate access to all the system's source code, kernel and userland, if you want, everything being located and hierarchized under /usr/src.

All the BSDs also come with an integrated barebones X server, which you can customize and turn into something as appealing as in Linux if you install your favorite window manager (Enlightenment, Gnome, KDE, etc).

Of course, the hardware support is less wide than in Linux. But on the other hand, what is supported, is definitely supported. Not half supported. There is no such thing as a half-baked driver which runs by magic rather than by code like 80% of the hardware drivers that exist for Linux. If your hardware is supported by BSD, it really is. Officially. No need to install a stinky patch from some unknown coder from Lituania, which works only with version 2.4.0.34-test22 of the kernel with glibc 2.0.whatever and some #include dated from february 2, 2001 only.

And.... one last thing, but you gotta be aware of it...
the user communities of Linux and *BSD traditionally hate each other...


okay,
/hype



RACC home - Bots-United: beer, babies & bots (especially the latter)
"Learn to think by yourself, else others will do it for you."

Last edited by Pierre-Marie Baty; 03-02-2004 at 00:57..
  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com