Way OT: Linux OS

[phillip]

I didn't have anywhere to post about this, so I thought I would post here and hope there's a Linux guru who's also a fellow pedal builder  I've been toying with the idea of loading Linux on an old PC that I recently bought from a local company.  The only thing that the PC has loaded on it is DOS.

I've read (or tried to...) some websites about Linux, but frankly, they're not speaking much english  What kind of things can Linux be used for?  Any advantages or disadvantages?

If someone could help guide me through Linux (the initial steps of deciding which doo-dads need to be loaded anyhow) I would be grateful.  There seem to be a few versions of it, but I've come to the conclusion that the latest version of Red Hat Linux would probably be the best to use, since Mozilla makes a good browser for it.

TIA

Phillip

[travissk]

Mozilla should run on most versions of linux (and windows too )

I use a RedHat variant configured for our university's firewall/security systems (kerberos), etc. It's a very good choice.

[humbuck]

Well, I'm a LINUX guru - use it for work and play.

It's a lot like windows, at least the KDE desktop is. The LINUX command line is similar to DOS, but with a hell of a lot more functions/programs.

Most of the Linux programs ore free, and open source - do a search on the net or visit sourceforge.com

Linux with KDE will run on anyhting better than a 2x86, but 32Mb of RAM should be used minimum.

If you want copies of the linux disks, I'll post them to you, gimme a PM or e-mail.

H

[phillip]

Okay, what's KDE?

I'm not sure how much RAM the tower has, but I know for sure that it has a Pentium I, which I can upgrade to something better if need be.  Extra RAM is also pretty cheap.  I was also going to install a hard drive with more space, but nothing HUGE like a lot of new computers come with today.

I'll probably be interested in those Linux disks since I'm stuck with dialup...downloading those huge OS files would take forever!

Phillip

[The Tone God]

I like to make note that "Linux" used in this context is really GNU/Linux. Linux itself is not a OS. I know its not a big deal but I thought I would point that out.

I used to used GNU/Linux a ways back but moved to BSD a number of years ago for technical and philsophical reasons. I'm not intending to start and OS war. The information that I will be mention will come from the perspective of that OS.

One of the things newbies don't quite grasp at first is unlike windows that has everything bundled together like the GUI, various apps, etc. other OSes seperate these functions. Everything is loaded in layers. Sometimes you need to do work to get each of these layers setup. In general these layers are the command line,  X windows, your window manager/GUI enviroment, then your apps.

The command line is low level control much like DOS. Very useful if you know what your doing. In order for the OS to draw pictures and graphics on the screen you need X windows. Once you get that going you can then load your actual GUI enviroment.

One of the great things about alternate OSes is you have a choice of GUI enviroments. The two most popular are KDE and Gnome. Presonally if I had a choice between those two I would go with KDE. Its alittle more polished and is very Mac-ish or dare I say window-ish. It does eat up memory and slows things down compared to other GUIs.

KDE and Gnome may be alittle too much for a P1 but there are MANY other window managers. There are some that are refered to as light-weight managers that provide basic GUI necessities but don't eat up alot of memory of CPU cycles. Good for lower powered machines. I actually use one called WindowMaker. I have some screenshots of my desktop on the site. (I should update those shots.)

Most distributions load everything in one shot upon installtion. They usually have a preset GUI so you maybe stuck with whatever the distribution gives you. BSD allows you to choose your GUI.

As for software most distributions have some kind of package system that allows you to install software easily. BSD has the package and port system which IMHO is a real jewel.

I personally don't like Red Hat. I didn't like them when I used GNU/Linux and I like them even less now. I hear many good things about Suse and Mandrake though.

As for what you need to get you going you can probably just pickup or have some one burn you a CD of whatever OS you pick. You can even burn dups of bought CDs and give them out. Yes its legal. One of the great things about freedom.

Here are some basic pros and cons.

Pros

Stabilty: No more rebooting or random crashes.

Freedom: Setup the computer exactly they way you like it. Install only what you want.

Price: Free. This includes most of the apps. Beat that.

Better Reasource Usage: You get more life out of your machines since most OSes don't eat your reasources to hell with each new version.

Cons

Software: Kiss most of your windows software goodbye because you can't run most of it on your new OS.

Support (?): You can get support but most of the support is given for free by other users. You are basiclly at the mercy of whomever want to answer your questions. Kinda like this forum with DIY. Still better then windows though.

Complex: It can be very overwhelming to a newbie the complexity of the system that is made available.

Retrainning: You have to retrain yourself not just in a new GUI and software but how the system works. Permissions, config files, kernels, and more wait for your education.

Overall it can be scary but fun at the same time. Much like building a stomp box and just as rewarding.

Andrew

[phillip]

I was reading the SUSe website, and if you order their $40 Linux 9.0 Personal package you get a nifty installation manager and a GOB of free programs (really nice ones, too).

And apparently...I could run Windows XP AND SUSe Linux 9.0 from the same computer without having to use one or the other.  Just choose one or the other at bootup and you're off and running.  Has anyone done that?  Any problems between the two?  Will the Windows Standby and Hibernation modes still work the way they're supposed to?  How much more of my 80GB hard drive would the additional operating system eat up?

TIA!
Phillip

[MarkB]

I like both Windows and *IX variants, and here's my .02..

I like Windows XP for the desktop, it's solid, and all the software that I care to use runs on it just fine.

I like *IX for 'network' type things, as opposed to desktops.  Servers (though I use Windows servers professionally, as well) , routers, firewalls, mail, etc.. that's what I find *IX useful for.

For instance - I have a RedHat box here that I use as my LAN mail server - it pulls in all my (and my wife's) mail from different accounts - runs SpamAssassin on it - and delivers it locally.   I also use it as a test server, and as a local MySQL server, etc..  It's handy to have around.

"-)

[Chris R]

The redhat install is very easy.. pop the cd in.. and reboot.

i use openbsd for firewall/gateway & dual book w2k & slackware for desktop.

C

[Hal]

watch out, and make sure what you get will run!  

I used to run red hat 7 on a 486 dx2-80mhz, with 36 mb of ram.  Man, that thing took about half an hour to start up...the X windowing system barely worked at all...my 1 mb graphics card apparently wasn't good enough to allow the mouse to move in real time...it was very jumpy.  

Now I'm running red hat, 8.4 on a k6-2 350, 96 mb ram, and its nice.  Very nice...but my dial up internet restricts it from being functional, as every piece of new software i get seems to need new libraries to compile...400 mb libraries.  

moral: if you wanna play around, have fun!  If you want a functional computer, be sure you know what you're getting yourself into before you begin.

[keko]

Phillip:
I've tryed several times to install different 'flavors' of Linux on my old computer (amd K7 700Mhz 390MbRam).

To me, Mandrake was the easiest one, althoug I find that RedHat get easier and easier to install over time.

I can't advise you, but beware, and look for such an advise, as how to partition your hard drive. I think you need at least a partition twice as big as you have ram, another one about 2 Gb for the OS itself, and a third one to act as your 'storage'. Others will come to your help here.

I don't remeber if I did install BSD or BeOS. Which one was the one prefferred to use with audio apps?

I think it was BeOS. Isn't BSD the 'father' of OS X? I'd love to have something like that running on a custom built, ultra fast and cheaper than a mac PC

[javacody]

Mandrake was the first Linux distro I got running out of the box about 4 years ago. The setup is very simple and it does most of the configuration for you. Make sure that you have hardware that is supported under Linux. You may also want to buy Linux for Dummies, or something to that effect.

Also, as a warning, Mandrake is not real secure out of the box. You probably don't want to set up Apache or Sendmail until you understand Linux better. It is very easy for a hacker who knows Linux to hack into your Linux box and use it to Spam, etc.


Linux is great fun, very stable, and a very fast OS. Mandrake also comes with some great office applications, different windowing systems, and even some games, as well as the typical assortment of servers. Wait until your first Kernel compile and install!

To address Keko's points, Mandrake has wizards that basically help you partition your hard drives. You could get buy with one root partiotion and one swap partition.

Also, the Mac OS X is based on UNIX, and there is a free and open source version of the core of Mac OS X called Darwin. It suffers from a lack of good hardware support (at least it did last I checked a year ago).

I wouldn't call myself a Linux guru, but I did setup Linux and administer it for our source code control (CVS) and at my last job (about 3 years ago) I was responsible for administering a BSD server as well as my usual programming and database duties. I got that job becuase of tinkering with Linux in my spare time.  

[afranks]

I'd have to add my vote for the mandrake distro.  As far as ease of installation goes, it beats red hat.  If you wanna try Linux without actually loading it up on your hard drive (to see if you like it), try one of the CD only distributions, like Knoppix.  Here's a link:

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html

You can download the ISO file for the CD here:

ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/knoppix/

Once you play around with it a while, then you can decide if you want to install it on your hd.

-alan

[humbuck]

OpenLinux is the easiest I think - I did an experiment with it. I installed it on a 4x86 with 32mb ram. It took about 45 minutes to install.

It boots up pretty quickly and KDE runs quite well, but a bit slow.

I used open linux 2.4 for the test, it's about 3 years old now, and will run on older boxes.

H.

[javacody]

All versions of Linux will run on older boxes, you just have to know which options to select when you are setting it up (well, except for Mandrake, it comes out of the box setup for Pentium support and above). I guarantee Mandrake is easier to install than almost all Linux distros, and is kept very up to date.

The only distro, imho that was easier to install was the now-defunct Corel Linux. They had a beautiful distribution that was very easy to install. You could have it up and running out of the box in 15 minutes. Unfortunately, Corel was in Financial trouble. Guess who bailed them out? Yep, Microsoft. And their one condition? Drop Linux.

Microsoft=Evil?

I don't think so, just incredibly greedy. Whether or not that equates with evil is a philosophical question, but I digress.