I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Well, I'm finally taking the plunge. I completely removed Windows 2K from one of my servers to make room for Linux. Now it is just sitting there begging me to make it work again.

I have two goals: to learn Linux well enough to do my own installations and configurations, and to convert all my software over to the Linux platform, that includes php, MySql and C++ coding.

This will be a major effort because I've only a very limited knowledge of Linux, however I have worked with computers and multiple OS's over a number of years, so I expect (pray) I'll learn quickly.

My first question is what Linux should I be using? It seems Redhat no longer supports Linux and that Debian may be the route to go http://www.debian.org/

Any help and advice is appreciated ! :)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

I recently made the jump to linux also, tho I still use windows primarily on my main computer. I would really recommend Xandros and Lindows

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

If you are just getting started with UNIX/LINUX
Then
"LINUX in a Nutshell" is a must.
O'Reilly.
ISBN 0-596-00482-6

They are wise enough to break the commands down by general area like File management, Communication, programming, system status, etc.

So you get an overall road map of everything before you jump in and get totally confused with all of the awkwardly named commands.

Start with one area first until you have it down, like File Management for example. It will save you much trouble later. Plan on it taking some time. Don't expect to have LINUX installed and be building your apps in a day or two...

I would start with File Management then I would learn a shell and a text editor next. THEN I would try to start getting things done. It can be too frustrating otherwise.

Just simple things like knowing how to do command redos and editing is really helpful to know first.

Good choice going LINUX! I was on UNIX in the days if HP-UX, IBM AIX, SO... but have been away from it for a while. Iam righ tbehind you and will go Ret Hat since I will have commercial Web sites and want the support and automatic updates. Plus I don't mind "donating" some back to the community to help ward off folks like MS+SCO who are really trying their best to eliminate or at the lest cause as much trouble as possible for the free people of the world..

I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE what happens in the next few years as L CONTINUES to take OVER THE WORLD!
WELCOME!

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Redhat now has two versions...

Fedora is the free version of redhat, its bleeding edge and has no (pay) support.

Redhat is a pay os that comes with support and is meant for corporations and stuff.

Redhat works well for development, least thats what I use. I run two servers (one for game, other for web, db, email and everything else). Neither of them have monitors or keyboards. I use ssh under windows to have remote console. nano (or pico) is a simple text editor, I use it for php and c stuff.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Thanks for the help !!! I'm eating up all of this. I agree that getting a good Linux reference book is a must. I'll order the book Austin recommeneds.

I'm still unsure about which Linux version to use. I'm not concerned at all about compatibility with Windows, I have enough computers running Windows, all I'd want is the ability to file share at most, if even that.

What Linux do most people use?

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Hi,
try the Mandrake Linux, it's based on RedHat stuff, with added tools and gui tools. well dokumented, open and very up-todae software collections. A 3-cd install will provide all you need.

Cheers

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

If your new and never used Linux before, stay with a linux distro such as Redhat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSe. After you learn how linux works and installs, then i'd goto a distro such as Slackware, Arch, or Stampede.

In my opinion using a distro such as redhat has no major gains over using a Microsoft Windows product.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

A friend of mine is very content with debian ... havnt tested it myself though.

i'm currently running suse 9.0 here

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

In my experience is that linux could not detect all my hardware, for example my video card. This was quite funny in a way, to see Linux (mandrake 9.3) saying "Cannot detect your video card" in a 32 bits 1024x768 modus...

anyway, it was half a year back then. I am still interested in Linux. I tried knoppix for fun and that worked okay. I should probably backup a lot of stuff before i will even think about going to Linux. As i have another experience with it that was like 100 times reinstalling it because i messed the Linux settings up with a click on a button (yes, i was root, and thats probably evil... ;))

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

( i am downloading a Debian distro , latest stable. With 100kb sec. So it will take a while to grab all 7 cd's...)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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 ;)]

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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.

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.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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?

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

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
:D

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

yes, and debian unstable is what you wan't. there are very good guides on how to install knopixx (which _is_ debian) to hard disk and configure it to be exactly normal debian system, apart from beeing allready installed and setup ;), but going from scratch should be not prob for you anyways.

Cheers memed

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Hi PMB,

nice essay about the BSD branches :), if i may add some things if you don't mind:

- there are 4 BSD's, don't leave out the BSDI, yet commercial it's a BSD, not soley FreeBSD with a different License.
- the license is the biggest difference between FreeBSD and GNU (inkluding Linux): GNU enforces the GPL (i.e. all resulting codes is gpl and must be publish free of charge, no linking to GPL libs for non-gpl apps) where as FreeBSD codes is free! no naggles, i can take it, modifiy it, compile it and sell it, and thats it the biggest point for FreeBSD
- NetBSD is a nice multiplatform stuff, but as important as irix ;) [my Amiga won't serve anything real]
-OpenBSD lacks "personal trust", allthoug it has the bests concepts it shows too many problems in realisation, this is the problem of reinwenting the wheel to often. it is save, but for 2 reasons:it is a fixed default install, linux is just a kernel second it lacks allmos any usabilit. and not to underestimate for a volunteer suported development: Mr DeRaadt is simply not a "communicative" person
- my mind remebers the AT&T part slightly different: the university developed a public domain unix, to save license cost from AT&T, which also had stopped active development and only cashed in on source licenses from customers who needed to fix their mainframe servers using the AT&T source.
this also lead to a court trial AT&T vs. BSD which took a long time, during which the BSD source was semi public and a lot of students started to rewrite the tools AT&T claimed to have copyrights on. basicaly the court hearing resulted in free replacements, and in the US all public finaced software once was public domain, with source in this case.
at the point the bsd unix was starting to get rid of most big license issues,AT&T and the Regents from the Unversity of Berkley made a strange deal which lead to the fact that the Regent can allow people to use AT&T copyrighted code without further notice and restriction, but this only applies to that 4.4lite release. The birth of FreeBSD, the only had to rewrite the rest where of to go with a real free OS.

-FreeBSD is the best of breeds in programm execution, no question about that. It has no competitor for generall I/O performance on standard hardware. just imagine the world biggest FTP site (ftp.cdrom.com) runs FBSD, and some years ago they had to switch hardware, because the cpu could not address enough ram for the database :P, the 2xPPro200 could only handle 4GB of memory range.
- oh and the driver stuff for linux, well if you have a HW list on a static html page, thats good for selecting server hardware, but for real life operating need's you need linux, it's 20% drivers (the ones in the kernel, not marked experimental) which are mature outnumber any other free operating systems.



but nothing you wrote is wrong =)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Back on topic now, no offense to PMB(BSD has a future just like linux does).

Debian is not really considered to be a minimalist or power user distro, but it CAN be. It does give enough options in the setup program to really limit the programs that get installed. Its a very good start, better that redhat, but i'd recommend you not spend way to much time trying to make it perfect, because Slackware is a mush more "standard" distro as you may call it. It deosn't use any of those .rpm or any other packaging file types floating around the net, and the developers are really good in limiting the software that gets pre-installed. The major distro's are 5+ cd's because they have 50 different apps that do the same damn thing. Like all the VI clones and BASH replacements, i mean WTF!?!?!

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

"debian unstable" ? You mean the latest version, not the stable release? Why?

Yes, I noticed that knoppix is debian, so I plan on starting with knoppix because in theory I can play around with it easilly using different hardware configurations and settings - at least that's my current plan.

I still have my left eye on BSD as there's some strong arguments in its favor that have been made.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Hi,

debian unstable vs. debian stable is like FreeBSD current vs. release.

one is the up-to-date system the other the mature safe way. in debian stable you won't have much new hardware, you will have old software (no GCC 3.x afaik) but it is stable. [period]

so unstable just means it's an evolving system, not a fixed running service. any user should go unstable, this does not mean to install all latest crap, but have the chioce to do so.

cheers

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Has anyone tried using Linux as a file sharing server for Windows desktops?

I wonder how reliable it is, what are the problems if any, and what the performance is like compared to using a Windows server. In short, should I consider doing such a thing or not?

I have a nice fault tolerant server that does nothing but file serving and acts as a Windows terminal server on occasion. What I'm thinking of doing, is installing Linux on this server, and using one of my desktop machines for terminal server sessions. All the windows desktops would use the Linux server for file serving. That way I'd be making the most out of the best machine I have because most of my apps will be moved from Windows over to Linux.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Linux not, but OpenBSD yes...

My OpenBSD "server" is a file and application sharing server for Windows desktops, NT domain controller, NT domain logon server, roaming user profiles server, it also does internet connection sharing, Minitel sharing (Minitel is a french services network for low-end terminals which was a direct concurrent for internet in the 80s, but still some services in France are only available through Minitel), fax server, DNS proxy, firewall, printing server, and I'm currently wondering if I could not put a HTTP server on it as well that would host a certain site of which the idea to put it online has been roaming in circles in my mind for a long time already.

I have just upgraded it to OpenBSD 3.4 (I finished with the NT domain controller setup yesterday) but before this, I had not rebooted it for MONTHS. I swear only the power shortages brought it down for limited periods of time. Rock solid. Always did its work, and it always did it well.

Since the upgrade, the machine is now a Pentium 133 with 48 Mbytes of EDO RAM and a 15Gb HDD. Before the upgrade, the machine was a Pentium 90 with 32 Mbytes of SIMM RAM and a 1.2Gb HDD (without the X-Windows server, the OS takes less than 200 Mb).

Although I defy any penguin on this planet to achieve such a level of robustness, I imagine a well-configured Linux would come close, and I'm pretty sure it will replace advantageously any Microsoft server.

*edit*
For Windows services on UNIX machines, check out
http://www.samba.org
http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/docs/...PDC-HOWTO.html (outdated but interesting)
http://ps-ax.com/samba-fq.html (outdated too, not many recent docs on the new Samba 3.0.0)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

cool OpenBSD stuff PMB,
i did'not get that NT domain controler stuff to work as expected on linux so i gave up. but my linux-floppy-router can easily beat 2 month, it now runns for 7 moth, only interruped by a poweroutage which took langer than 2 hours, but it's only 486/66 with 16 mb ram, 2 nic's and a floppy drive running a very mature 2.0 kernel (redhat base b.t.w. *g*)

my linux main server dies aprox 1x a month, in bad weather sometimes even once a day, but i think thats ok, until now i found no os which would do better for the purpose of a single server for _all_ needs.

cheers memed

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

I guess the short answer is "yes you can safely replace Windows as a file server", at least in the case of OpenBSD.

As for the hardware mentioned, this is rather funny for me. I have some old computers headed for the scrap heap that are way better than the ones you guys mention. There's just no use trying to run the Windows 2K or higher on machines like that. You need a minimum of 128 MB and over 1 GIG in HD space. Guess I should hang on to them for running Linux or BSD.

*edit*

I now am browsing the net with knoppix linux! I'm using the latest "unstable" release and it is working great so far. The whole things boots up from a 700 mb cd. Now comes the hard part - learning how to configure and make us of all this stuff.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Future users be warned about using 486s.
It takes about an hour to configure and compile any given application.
Other than that they are ok, just not for the impatient.

Cpu: 486 dx2 66
Mem: 28mb
HD: 2gb
OS: OpenBSD 3.4

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

*g*, my 486 is my router and firewall, it boots of a floppy and has only 2 nic's as add on hardware ;) , but i think 32 mb of ram.

my server is a bit bigger though: 7 hdd's (~500GB), 1GB ram, dvd writer, mpeg2-hw tv cards, 2x P3 1000, 2 NIC's, web cam, analog tv .......
oh and yes it's a redhat 7.3 linux, but thats worn off, i updated allmost everything.

cheers memed

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

too bad i havent seen this thread before..
Well anyways, ive not tried debian or knoppix, but i can only say, give gentoo a try, even as a new linux user...
Ive started with a suse install back in 99, used it for a week and wiped it again i guess.. didnt had a good pc/not enough hd space for dual boot etc ack then...
since 2001 im using linux again on a 2nd comp, i tried mandrake cause it was meant to be easy and good..
well, i could get it to work.. since 1 year im using gentoo though, and all i can say is.. skip mandrake and the like, gentoo is such a nice system, you can inform yourself about it at www.gentoo.org
it has no graphical installer, thats right, but it has great documents and a great community, so installing without a gui wasnt a real problem.. it has disadvantages, eg for gentoo you need quite much time to get some things to work, it doesnt do many setup related things automatically.. but this has advantages, everything will be as you like it and you will learn alot more about your system and linux than you do with mandrake/suse/redhat etc - also it has a great package management system called portage..
however your pc should have a good internet connection and a fairly fast cpu, as you need to compile most or everything you want to install etc..
cephas can probably at least partly confirm this :)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

well i tried gentoo at a point i did build mosix clusters based on redhat on my job, and wanted to test the new 2.6 pre kernels with glibc 2.3 .i failed because i was reluctant to read for more that 2 evenings "just" to get a login from to box [i.e. beeing able to test the system and build a new 2.6 kernel].
for the docs, well when i tried i got pissed, because they explain from top to bottom, from adam and eve to the mars landing. all on one html page, i could not find the important stuff so i failed.

i know if i had invested 2 more days it might habve worked...

but i choose to clone my r.h. 7.3 and upgrade it to 9.0 beta, that worked in 45 mins :
use dd after booting from cd, change fstab to new hdX dev's, check boot loader, reboot using rh 9.0 cd and choose update, wait 25 mins, reboot, get new kernel, build with defaults -> done
dual system 7.3 and 9.0;glibc 2.2+2.4 kernel and glibc 2-3 and kernel 2.6

i know that the _fault_ was on my side, but the work out into it made me thing that using a FreeBSD would heve been better, it even has a better starting pint and a make world is more likely to build everything as expected. oh b.t.w. i just ran a 1.5 CS server on FreeBSD, lol 200mhz mmx are enough for 4 players.

cheers
and please do try gentoo, it has the right atitude, esp. for starters

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

well, gentoo does require more time and work to setup, about a few hours of reading/actively setting up your sys + 1-3 days of compile time.. but imo its really worth it..

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

yeah i just wanted to justify why i use redhat (they are also bad, they broke a lot of nice things).
i know gentoo is good, but not from my exp. :)
because i was too impatient

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

well, maybe you should try again sometime.. cause once youve set it up correctly as you like it, you dont have that much work afterwards, eg when updating progs... its just 'emerge -up prog' and an 'etc-update' in case config files have changed - thats it, very nice, fast, simple.. :)
also ive not heard too much good things about the 'updates' of those distros.. i did an update from mdk 8.x to mdk 9 once, then suddenly all of my kde apps acted very weird... i didnt resolve the prob though, i was hardly using linux back then..

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

Oh, i will, but time and needs won't lead to that very soon :)

and for the rh update, that worked, but i don't use X that much (only one linux box has a CRT). so i dont care about kde apps going weird since my TV server is using a hardware DVB card with TV out and OSD. but it works on the console, so for real multimedia i suggest using linux and invest some money into HW cards, it simply works, including every hardware i have [dvd-r,webcam,sblive 5.1,usb-storage, network client<->server and streaming,mpeg4 de-/encoding, 3 IR remotes,...] all controled from the couch or bedroom ;-)

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

As far as multimedia goes, i only use linux for my dedicated MP3 player. My entertainment center handles everything else. As far as gentoo goes, it is one of the most optimized distro's out there. Going from slackware to Gentoo let my server handle 16players over the 12max slackware would handle without hardware bottlenecks. Its a celeron 500@533, 256mbRAM and it also acts as a internal network file/printserver and a web/FTP server at the same time that its a 16player TFC server. Under Redhat and windows it would peak out at 12players even without the server daemons going.

And i hate the fact that redhat defaults to a GUI instead of a Command prompt!!! And portage kicks the shit outa any other package management tool out there. Compile time from a Stage1 install on the server was about 3 days to get the base system running. Then another 2 days to compile X, KDE, and Mozzila.

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

redhat does not "default" to a gui, it just also enabled, but it's easy to say NO when it asks you during install. they offer allmost all tools for the CLI, and like said it is the best documented system. not the best system of all. I can find tips, tricks and howto's for stuff i never made before which do work(isdn2PBX, mosix cluster kernel, root-nfs,...). And it's easy to turn a redhat into a custom linux, it's just not from scratch, but from redhat :-)

cheers

p.s. i will try debian next, i got hands on a knopixx cd

Re: I'm switching over to Linux, got some q's
 

@memed:
Knoppix is very cool and I'm using it for some of our desktop systems. For servers I go with plain Debian.
Debian has three main trees: stable testing and unstable.

Use "stable" for production systems. Some of the packages seam to be outdated by newer releases but all known bugs get fixed first in this release. For instance the backported all kernelfixes (do_req bug) to the 2.4.18 kernel. The only drawback is that no new features will be added to "stable".

If you need more current releases (or new features) try the "testing" tree.

And if you want have your hands on the latest developments "unstable" is you choice.

The best feature of Debian (and Knoppix) ist the "apt-get" utility (don't use dselect or tastselect to install new packages as they install a lot of unneccessary stuff). "apt-get update" updates the list of available packages and "apt-get dist-upgrade" upgrades your system to the most current version of the selected tree. And installing new programs is also simple: "apt-get install apache"! Well, sometimes it's hard to guess the right package name (libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 provides libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3) but that is the same for other distributions ;).

Feel free to ask me if you get stuck with debian/knoppix at some point 8)