Forum: The Classroom
Topic: LINUX
started by: Dark Knight Bob
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Jan. 16 2001,22:27
k i konw stuff bout computers that have windows and dos and shit but i havent got a clue about linux i look out there and theres all kinds of versions of the shit. whats the difference iono what its all about man------------------
Random giberish etc. etc.
Posted by fatbitch on Jan. 16 2001,22:51
i have been using linux for a couple fo years, and let me tell you, if you are not willing to put a LOT of your spare time into trying to get it working, forget it. it is worth it, and its very satisfying when it all works, but you spend a lot of raw time just reading doc's and fiddling with config filesand redhat is the only way to go for first time users, forget mandrake, it ALWAYS has problems. i know people will disagree with me, but thats just my experience  anyway, ill leave the rest for the other guru's here ------------------
"I didnt know cows had boobs, I just thought they had that big nutsack with all the wieners hanging off it" - Beavis Metal/Electronic/Ambient etc..
< http://www.mp3.com/fatbitch >
Posted by aventari on Jan. 16 2001,23:46
I don't profess to be a guru, i've only been using linux for about a month, but I love itI was able to set up a linux router for my home network in about 8 hours or so, including installing 2 network cards, and red hat 6.2 on my machine. I am a linux newbie too. I've played around w/ HP/UX, AIX, Red Hat, and FreeBSD, and I would say definately go w/ red hat. it's a great, powerful, and FREE os. you can't beat it. Of course you must dual boot to win98 so you can run the programs you want....
------------------
aventari
"Stupid soap, i will 0wn j00!!" -I think you know
Posted by Neophyre on Jan. 16 2001,23:49
i tried ZipSlack.
Runs ontop of Dos.
It's a bitch! i cant get the fuckin thing to connect to the net.
Posted by kai on Jan. 17 2001,02:01
hey, i just installed debian two days ago. now i triple boot with win2k/win98/and linux. it's pretty sweet. but i would have in no way gotten all the hardware to work if it weren't for our school admin. he's demon on irc if any of you know him. he also helped write xmms. took the original source and cleaned it up. look on the credits he's there.------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Jan. 17 2001,13:33
Ok so with red hat is there much of a difference between version 6.0 and 7.0?------------------
Random giberish etc. etc.
Posted by pengu1nn on Jan. 17 2001,14:16
i think red hat sux. to many bugsuse debian, harder to install but is more secure and stable distro imo
Posted by kai on Jan. 17 2001,22:38
also it's easier to upgrade. i just got woody today.
hmm, that might sound odd to some of you
------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Posted by fission on Jan. 18 2001,16:20
As an op in a Linux channel on IRC, I can tell you to stay far away from Red Hat 7. Although I definitely do not like any Red Hat versions, at least Red Hat 6 and earlier came with a working compiler. Heck, even Linus in a recent posting said that RH 7 was bad medicine.------------------
--
Tyler Mitchell "Hello," he lied.
-- Don Carpenter, quoting a Hollywood agent
Posted by kai on Jan. 19 2001,18:59
< http://linuxdocs.org/HOWTOs/DOS-Win-to-Linux-HOWTO.html > yeah ------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
|