OK I know this is quite a controversial subject and opinion varies waaay to much. However, I just recently I got interested in linux and, after reading, have come to the conclusion that the majority prefers either Suse, Mandrake or Red Hat distributions for people new to this OS.

I know many MS people are computer wizzes and know their stuff. Perhaps some can vote on the poll and explain. Also their experiences with Linux at the beginning, any challenges. Finally any good forums/websites/tutorials/help offered would be great. Anything that could help people just starting on the subject

For too long have I heard the myths of this OS. Hope I can try it out and see for myself.

Thanks, element

Re:: LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

I chose Red Hat(fedora) as that was the first Linux distro I worked with and it is the most recognized Linux qualification(if that is your goal). Mandrake is "lightweight" and an excellent workstation distro but I personally wouldn't use it as a Server. SUSE makes for an excellent Server O/S as does Red Hat but they are not as quick as mandrake would be running as a workstation(desktop). But it's all a matter of personal choice.

For whatever problems you encounter search [url=http://www.google.com/linux]google\Linux[/url]

These links are a good beginner's guide for fedora core 2

[url=http://fedoraguide.org/fc2/fc2beginnersguide.html]Unofficial Fedora Core2 guide[/url]

[url=http://home.gagme.com/greg/linux/fc2-tips.php]Fedora Core2 tips & Tricks[/url]

Use this link for software packages you might need/want

[url=http://freshrpms.net/]freshrpms[/url]

Documentation can be found here

[url=http://www.tldp.org/]The Linux Documentation Project[/url]

As for forums there are plenty. If you have a problem run a search on [url]www.google.com/linux[/url] and take it from there.

Hope this is helpful and good luck

thanks for the info, factorg.

How easy was Red Hat for you at the beginning? Any challenges during installation, later stages?

Additionally, whats an rpm?

thanks, element

[quote=element86]thanks for the info, factorg.

How easy was Red Hat for you at the beginning? Any challenges during installation, later stages?[/quote]

It wasn't very easy but it wasn't that difficult either as the documentation is quite thorough. It's more of a mind set thing imo.

Installation is quick and easy but you can encounter problems depending upon the hardware you are using but if you are going the Red Hat route read the [url=https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/]Red Hat Manuals[/url] on that link, they will cover the basics for you and put you on the right track. Remember that Fedora Core is very similar to Red Hat so the documentation will work for both.(Fedora Core is now the free version of the Red Hat O/S).

[quote=element86]Additionally, whats an rpm?

thanks, element[/quote]

An rpm is a package containing software and/or documentation. You use rpm to install software basically. Read [url=http://www.redhat.com/docs/books/max-rpm/max-rpm-html/ch-intro-to-rpm.html#S1-INTRO-TO-RPM-WHAT-ARE-PACKAGES]this[/url] and it should explain a few things for you regarding rpm's.

I tried Mandrake and Red Hat, and since RH9, i'm chosing this one.

Installation was easy, since my hardware presented no problems.

You can find good sites with spanish documentation... just google it :)

Fedora is an awesome distro, and if you have an AMD 64-bit processor, then you should get Fedora.

But if you are new to Linux, Mandrake is the best choice bar none. Then you can try the others.

mandrake is the easiest to use hands down, it has the easiest interface, and most users over the others, so there is TONS of support out there for it. redhat recently discontinued support on all redhats up to 9... but thats not a huge deal considering the support available on the internet. if you are completely new to linux, you will have some problems, but there are plenty of linux geeks out there (and on here)

if you have any questions.. i might be able to help, pm me :Bingo:

(BTW, suse does rock) :wink:

another suggestion i have is to check out Knoppix, its a linux distro that runs completely off of cdr, so you can download, burn and play around with it a bit... of course you cant do everything you can do in linux, but its fairly good to use for practice, and that way you dont have to worry about fucking anything up. and [b]don't[/b] put linux and windows on the same HD, thats just asking for trouble, trust me :x

get knoppix and try linux without the partition commitment :)

[url]www.knoppix.de[/url]

i also recommend fedora, suse or mandrake... most popular distros with a good support community.

Thank you very much all of you for your excellent help.

Peloquin and audiotherapy, thanks for the recommendation. I did some more search over forums and Knoppix CD seems like a good start as you dont have to make any commitments. I will give that a try and then, if happy, switch to one of the others.

I have a doubt about installing Linux. Suppose I had the installation CD of one of the distributions. Will that CD be a bootable CD so that I just insert it and start the computer and it will boot from this cd starting all the installation setup? At least thats the way I did it with WinXP recently... Or is Linux installed from Windows?

Additionally, does order of installation affect in any way? From reading I have heard of some orders, such as installing a certain OS before the other one...not sure

i strongly recommend NOT installing both operating systems on the same drive.. the partitioning in linux is different, and it doesnt like the NTFS file system generally. If installing Linux, the cd normally will be bootable, so you can just pop it in and start the computer, the install will begin.. I suggest also using a seperate hard drive formatted FAT32.... you can then use linux to format the drive with one of the linux ext2 or ext3 file systems... which is fairly simple.

[quote=peloquin]i strongly recommend NOT installing both operating systems on the same drive.. the partitioning in linux is different, and it doesnt like the NTFS file system generally. If installing Linux, the cd normally will be bootable, so you can just pop it in and start the computer, the install will begin.. I suggest also using a seperate hard drive formatted FAT32.... you can then use linux to format the drive with one of the linux ext2 or ext3 file systems... which is fairly simple.[/quote]

what do you mean by "the partitioning in linux is different". I had also heard about it not supporting NTFS, but I had also heard that it didnt support FAT32, leaving FAT16 as only option, or is this uncorrect?

I was thinking of just partitioning the drive, one with NTFS for win, one with FAT(dont know wich..) for linux, but I suspect you are telling me not to do this?

i used fat32 for linux for a long time and it wasnt bad. all im saying with using the same hard drive is that there can be problems, im not saying its definately going to cause problems, id just recommend putting each os on a seperate drive if you have that option. i would install it on a fat 32 partition and use fdisk once its installed to reformat the partition as a linux file system, which obviously linux is built to work with. what i meant with the partitioning is actually the file system structure. the two most common linux file systems are ext2 and ext3 and it works much smoother with those. that being said, using fat 32 aint gonna kill you, but dont put win and nix on the same partition, they dont like each other very much :P

Another one you should try that you don't have to commit to would be Phlak. Its just a bootable iso image that you burn, and boot it up. No install, no nothing. So u can keep all your partitions and everything else, no problems because its not installing anything. I use it when I travel among other things. :Who: :wink:

[url]http://www.phlak.org/modules/news/[/url]

[quote=peloquin]i used fat32 for linux for a long time and it wasnt bad. all im saying with using the same hard drive is that there can be problems, im not saying its definately going to cause problems, id just recommend putting each os on a seperate drive if you have that option. i would install it on a fat 32 partition and use fdisk once its installed to reformat the partition as a linux file system, which obviously linux is built to work with. what i meant with the partitioning is actually the file system structure. the two most common linux file systems are ext2 and ext3 and it works much smoother with those. that being said, using fat 32 aint gonna kill you, but dont put win and nix on the same partition, they dont like each other very much :P[/quote]

i only have one hard drive...ill try to look for another one.

which file system do you recommend of the two linux ones? ext2 or ext3?

if i had to use just one hard drive, would separating all the windows logical drives in one extended partition, and the linux partitions (swap, root) within another extended partition help not have these conflict problems that may occur?

[quote=Civic_Zen]Another one you should try that you don't have to commit to would be Phlak. Its just a bootable iso image that you burn, and boot it up. No install, no nothing. So u can keep all your partitions and everything else, no problems because its not installing anything. I use it when I travel among other things. :Who: :wink:

[url]http://www.phlak.org/modules/news/[/url][/quote]

thanks ill check that one too

[quote=element86]i only have one hard drive...ill try to look for another one.

which file system do you recommend of the two linux ones? ext2 or ext3?

if i had to use just one hard drive, would separating all the windows logical drives in one extended partition, and the linux partitions (swap, root) within another extended partition help not have these conflict problems that may occur?[/quote]

it may help to put them on seperate partitions, the real problem with putting them on the same one is a.) the whole NTFS thing and b.) if linux gets fucked the whole partition is fucked :MadNow:

id use ext3 :Bingo:

yeah i can imagine...

do you use both windows and linux?

actually right now i am just using xp pro.... i have gone back and forth with dual boot, to just redhat.. back to windows..

ultimately i prefer linux, there are just a lot of things you have to go without when using it (certain programs, files, etc.)

ive taken various college courses on both systems though, so im very familiar with linux administration and all that bizness.

[quote=peloquin][quote=element86]which file system do you recommend of the two linux ones? ext2 or ext3?[/quote]

id use ext3 :Bingo:[/quote]

+1 :Bingo:

[quote=element86]i only have one hard drive...ill try to look for another one.

if i had to use just one hard drive, would separating all the windows logical drives in one extended partition, and the linux partitions (swap, root) within another extended partition help not have these conflict problems that may occur?[/quote]

Another option you have is to load linux in a virtual machine on you windows workstation. I use this at work where I have a Fedora Core2 workstation but I run WinXp in a virtual machine on my linux workstation(does that make any sense? ) I would recommend [url=http://www.vmware.com/download/workstation.html]VMware workstation[/url] for this . It's not free but i can give you a licence key if you need.

[quote=factorg][quote=peloquin][quote=element86]which file system do you recommend of the two linux ones? ext2 or ext3?[/quote]

id use ext3 :Bingo:[/quote]

+1 :Bingo:

[quote=element86]i only have one hard drive...ill try to look for another one.

if i had to use just one hard drive, would separating all the windows logical drives in one extended partition, and the linux partitions (swap, root) within another extended partition help not have these conflict problems that may occur?[/quote]

Another option you have is to load linux in a virtual machine on you windows workstation. I use this at work where I have a Fedora Core2 workstation but I run WinXp in a virtual machine on my linux workstation(does that make any sense? ) I would recommend [url=http://www.vmware.com/download/workstation.html]VMware workstation[/url] for this . It's not free but i can give you a licence key if you need.[/quote]

so you would have to create a virtual drive right? im sorry, im not much aware of virtual machines...

whats the difference between creating a virtual machine and using partitions?

^^^ A virtual machine actually runs 1 OS inside the other (much virtual pc for the Macs. Using different partitions, you have to boot into the OS you choose.

Here's a screenshot of a linux box running a virtual XP workstation:

[img]http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/img/ws4_large4.gif[/img]

very cool. i played around with wine when i was on a linux machine, but i never got it working perfectly. well worth taking a look at though

more info [url=http://www.winehq.com/]here[/url]

Re:: LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

VM Ware is pretty nice to get a Linux OS going. I took Mandrake 10 and installed it on a VM and it works pretty nice. It's straight forward and easy to install it without much help. The only problem I have is I can't get the network card to recognize but Im too lazy and haven't had as much fun in the command line for Linux to go about and load VM tools once Im in the VM, that is truely tricky.

When you have a Windows VM, like a VM of XP you can pretty much click the icon on the VM screen and it installs VM ware tools for you in the XP VM.

I run XP Pro with VMs of (dist) Mandrake 10, Windows 2003 server, Windows XP.

so which one is better? using a virtual machine or partitioning? which one is easier, cause less compatibility problems, etc?

^ less probs with virtual machine id say, but partitioning is easier :lol:

[quote=peloquin]^ less probs with virtual machine id say, but partitioning is easier :lol:[/quote]

could you please explain why less probs? perhaps compatibility issues? conflicts between windows/linux?...

With using a Virtual Machine you dont have to worry about having two partitioning schemes, ie one for windows(NTFS) and one for Linux(ext2 or 3). You install the Virtual Machine Software, run the program after installation which will allow you to install another O/S which will reside on your current O/S. After installation to start the new O/S all you do is click an icon on your desktop and the O/S will boot up giving you a choice of which O/S to work on as the image above shows.

:Wacko:

Best thing to do would be to [url=http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/ws_features.html]RTFM[/url] :wink:

[quote=factorg]With using a Virtual Machine you dont have to worry about having two partitioning schemes, ie one for windows(NTFS) and one for Linux(ext2 or 3). You install the Virtual Machine Software, run the program after installation which will allow you to install another O/S which will reside on your current O/S. After installation to start the new O/S all you do is click an icon on your desktop and the O/S will boot up giving you a choice of which O/S to work on as the image above shows.

:Wacko:

Best thing to do would be to [url=http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/ws_features.html]RTFM[/url] :wink:[/quote]

OK, started reading... 1."These operating systems and applications are isolated in secure virtual machines that co-exist on a single piece of hardware. The VMware virtualization layer maps the physical hardware resources to the virtual machine's resources, so each virtual machine has its own CPU, memory, disks, I/O devices, etc. Virtual machines are the full equivalent of a standard x86 machine."

So...dumb question maybe but...are the resources divided? I mean, suppose I had 1 gig processor...500 MHz for every OS then? The same with ram?

2. " Easily share files between guest and host virtual machines with shared folders or drag and drop files between virtual machines. " If Linux is running with XT3 file system and WinXP with NTFS, I do not think this would be possible. In a virtual machine system, however, are different file systems used? If so, how is this drag and drop possible? And if not, then how does Linux run on a file system for which it is not very compatible or viceversa?

[quote=element86] OK, started reading... 1."These operating systems and applications are isolated in secure virtual machines that co-exist on a single piece of hardware. The VMware virtualization layer maps the physical hardware resources to the virtual machine's resources, so each virtual machine has its own CPU, memory, disks, I/O devices, etc. Virtual machines are the full equivalent of a standard x86 machine."

So...dumb question maybe but...are the resources divided? I mean, suppose I had 1 gig processor...500 MHz for every OS then? The same with ram?[/quote]

No, VMware will utilies your processor much like any other application, it will take what it needs when it needs it. The amount of RAM that your Virtual Machine will use is determined by the value you tell it to use during the installation of the Virtual Machine.

[quote=element86]2. " Easily share files between guest and host virtual machines with shared folders or drag and drop files between virtual machines. " If Linux is running with XT3 file system and WinXP with NTFS, I do not think this would be possible. In a virtual machine system, however, are different file systems used? If so, how is this drag and drop possible? And if not, then how does Linux run on a file system for which it is not very compatible or viceversa?[/quote]

Taking the scenario that you are using a WinXP workstation and will install the VMware client on XP then install Linux as a Virtaul machine;

When you install linux through VMware, VMware will create either 2 x 2gig files or 1x 4gig file depending which option you choose(4GB is the default size but you an choose to split that 4GB file into 2 x 2GB files. You can also choose a larger size if you have the disk space or you can install it to a completely different drive altogether). Now what it does is uses those files as it would a Hard Drive, therefor formatting those files with the ext3 filesystem and installing the O/S.

I have no idea about the drag and drop.

so the booting up takes much longer I suppose...considering the fact that part of a hard drive has to be formatted and installing linux and all...or is this done once only?

[quote=element86]so the booting up takes much longer I suppose...considering the fact that part of a hard drive has to be formatted and installing linux and all...or is this done once only?[/quote]

There should be no difference in your boot process. No actual part of the hard drive is actually formatted with a linux filesystem, as i tried to explain above, it uses files which are formatted with the linux filesystem. Windows has no idea that linux is installed on those files, it only see's them as being files. And the boot process of the virtual machine is very quick.

[quote=factorg][quote=element86]so the booting up takes much longer I suppose...considering the fact that part of a hard drive has to be formatted and installing linux and all...or is this done once only?[/quote]

There should be no difference in your boot process. No actual part of the hard drive is actually formatted with a linux filesystem, as i tried to explain above, it uses files which are formatted with the linux filesystem. Windows has no idea that linux is installed on those files, it only see's them as being files. And the boot process of the virtual machine is very quick.[/quote]

cool.thanks. so the fact that windows doesnt know about linux's existence will probably also eliminate any conflicts..

^^yes it does

i really like gentoo and fedora

Re: LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

I'm also a big fan of Gentoo, what i did was start messing with Suse for a while and then get into Gentoo to get a better insight in the inner workings.

Now i run both, Suse on my laptop and Gentoo on my main pc.

Also Gentoo hands Suse it's ass performance wise if configured/compiled properly.

Re: LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

poop

Re: LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

I happen to like debian... been messin' around with fedora 2, and i have to admit i like it quite a bit...