Red hat, slackware, debian, OpenBSD, anything that can run on any x86 core will run on a Duron. Trust me...

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

Also, you should try something other than redhat 7.0. It's really buggy, and has some major problems. Try running Mandrake, which is really easy to use and has tons of programs, slackware, my personal favorite, best for learning how linux works, or even try using an older version of redhat such as 6.2. They are much less buggy.

Good Luck

And unlike Redhat, it sticks to the standard Unix layout of config files, etc. I tried to edit RedHat's messy-as-fuck config files once and gave up - blech.

I do prefere Suse for personal use, but I still choose Red Hat because of work. I do hate what they did with the beta version of the glibc in 7.0, that is why I run 6.2. I compile my own kerenls anyway, so I really don't give a shit what RedHat does.

------------------
Wine me, dine me, 1000101 me

My *nix experience is what I've read from slashdot and some minor programming during school. I know conceptually what's happening in Lunix. I'm not a big fan of command lines, I don't really want to learn that much about Lunix, but I'd like to play with a stable system that would be a network server and file server. I'd like power over it, but I'm not interested in pulling my hair out.

Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
So, what would ya'll recommend for me for a disto? I'm extensively knowledgeable of Windows (inside and out), I can do programming, I am pretty fluent in DOS. I've tried using the Mandrake Distro (7.1), but it just turned out to be a mess and really turned me off to Lunix.

---

Sounds like almost the exact same experience I had before I tried Linux, and Red Hat 6.2 was definately a great OS for me and my level. There is a LOT of help on the web, and almost everything i've installed has had a red hat rpm available. Thats what made everything pretty easy. I haven't really tried any other distros except for FreeBSD, and that was a horrible experience.
just my .02 though

And yes it runs on my Duron/Kt-7 raid setup.

------------------
"The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -

Distro wise, if you're new to linux I recommend Mandrake. Debian's pretty nice, also, but is a little more "advanced". There's no such thing as "run this distro for workstations and this one for servers" crap. Any distro can become a good system with the right admin and the right knowledge. Running Linux doesn't make you l33t, either... running Slackware with Tripwire, SATAN, a every-ten-minutes cron setting for slackUp, the latest Apache version (with PHP, MySQL, mod_perl, and all that other good stuff), and basicly having the most macked out system makes you l33t. It pushes you passed 31337... shit, you might as well be 31338

Yeah... and red hat sucks. I live really close to Durham (where they're based), and ran it for a little bit, but it sucks. Mandrake's cool. I'd say stay away from the profitting distro's, though. Slackware or Debian are you best bets for a good linux box.

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

quote:

---

Originally posted by a.out:
I have a Duron 800 (oc'ed to ~900) that cost me ๙. I found it from pricewatch.com. I also got this sweet-ass motherboard with a built in raid controller (Abit KT7-RAIDGood Luck

---

but also which is better: i read its better to run (if you're gonna dual boot to windows) linux off a second hard disk altogether rather than on 1 partitioned drive. is it better whats the pros and cons? and also

------------------
It's not that you're wrong, it's just that i'm right!

This message has been edited by Dark Knight Bob on February 08, 2001 at 03:25 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
Really, if you want a good BSD, go with OpenBSD anyway.

---

-KL1NK

edit: grammar

This message has been edited by KL1NK on February 09, 2001 at 07:07 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
hmm strage thats exactly the setup i was thinking of. and also i was gonna use an older version as i konw 7.0 sux plus i am way a newbie to linux so i aint gonna bother fuckin ma system over and going mental( even more mental i should say)

---

If you decide to go with redhat, use 6.2. I highly recommend that you actually start it with slackware if you really want to learn how the system works. Then, moving to any other distro will be much easier in the future. I don't really recommend starting with mandrake. It sugarcoats most things, but if something goes wrong, you will have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how to fix it. Get some linux background knowledge first, then try distro's like mandrake.

BTW, if you decide to use slackware, wait for 7.2 to be released (it will be fairly soon), as it will contain KDE2, Xfree86 4, etc. Right now, you have to run the "current" version to get those, or you have to manually upgrade. I run the slackware-current.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
Umm... FreeBSD is *not* a Linux... it's a BSD. Very, very, very different... Really, if you want a good BSD, go with OpenBSD anyway.

---

Yeah no shit it's not linux, but it's a free unix clone (just like linux). That makes it pretty similar in my opinion. I would hardly say "very, very,very different"...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
Yeah... and red hat sucks. I live really close to Durham (where they're based), and ran it for a little bit, but it sucks. Mandrake's cool. I'd say stay away from the profitting distro's, though.

---

Would you mind explaining your reasoning here? Saying "this sucks" or "thats cool" aren't the most enlightening ways to answer someones tech question.

------------------
"The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -

mandrake is "cool" because it doesn't have the problems red hat has, and is easy to understand for newbies and has a buttload of documentation on a cd (one install, one source, and one with (for 7.0) 5 books dealing with linux in pdf format).

currently, I recommend mandrake for complete newbies who would like a linux system to "tinker with", slackware for people who just want to know linux cuz it's "da bomb freggin' diggity" (actually heard someone call it that once), and Open/NetBSD for a "true" UNIX (FreeBSD is ok, but it has a whole freggin' lot of security problems).

Oh, and I was wondering what people know about BeOS? I've been considering picking up a copy to check it out. I'm confused over it's origins, though. I've only briefly read over be.com and I'm not into reading 10 pages about a OS when all I want to know could probably be summed up in 3 midsized paragraphs...

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
I could never get my FAT32 partition to work, and neither could 12 of my friends who ran 6.1 on their computers.

---

you must have pretty dense friends...

quote:

---

Open/NetBSD for a "true" UNIX (FreeBSD is ok, but it has a whole freggin' lot of security problems).

---

This message has been edited by KL1NK on February 10, 2001 at 10:43 PM

And I'm not just pulling this security problem info out of my cat's butt, its all there in plain text. Because there are so many programs that come with freebsd the potential for security bugs (mostly buffer overflow crap for DoS attacks) increases dramatically. Taking into consideration that actually upgrades in the software that is included with freebsd is much more frequent then freebsd's stable version is release, bug problems rise. The reason so many people run FreeBSD as a webserver is because it makes a great webserver, but only if you have a good admin. Think about all the hotmail problems. They run FreeBSD. Does that mean FreeBSD sucks? No, it means hotmails admins suck (no surprise, they're micro$$$oft employees). What is the old saying? "security is 10\% software, 90\% admin"?

I'm not saying FreeBSD is a bad operation system, I'm just saying it's not (in my opinion) the best BSD. a lot of people switch from linux to a bsd thinking "oh, it'll be more secure out of the box". yeah, maybe, but the facts are simple. Unless you update everything atleast once a week, audit some code yourself, and are a helly good admin, the server'll have flaws. Anyways... I just like OpenBSD . I dunno, but the idea of no remote holes in 3 years and no localhost in almost 3 just makes me want to throw rocks at windows

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
anywazy back to my question on the two harddrives please

---

if you use two hard drives, you won't have to repartition the drive that hold Windows.

Otherwise, just don't mount your Windows partition under Linux, and you'll be safe.

------------------
Got root? 'cause I sure as hell do.

run windows on your master disk, no need to partition it. Install linux on your slave disk, partition it however you see fit (/, swap, /home, whatever). You can mount your windows disk easily on linux, just as long as /etc/fstab is right and you have the right mount points and crap...

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

A linux distrobution is just the means to a good start. I couldn't get my 6.2 machine to stay up for 3 days straight, so I upgraded the kernel after discovering that 2.4.1 had my IDE driver, and it was more stable and less prone to curruption. I am sorry to say but most of the problems you experience with Linux are in X, or the Kernel.

NOTE: I agree that BSD is a good choice as well, but I can't let go of my penguin.

------------------
Wine me, dine me, 1000101 me

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
running Linux and Windows on different disks is a hell of a lot better then running them on the same disk. I dunno if you have the means, but actually running them on different computers is much better, too. I currently have to two computers, each dedicated to a single OS. Only problem is I have to get a working Win98 install disc to actually use my newer computer... :/

---

It is easy in lilo to do it. You would put something like this in /etc/lilo.conf:

image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.1-1
label=Linux
read-only
root=/dev/hda5

other=/dev/hdb
label=Windows95

NOTE: You will have to install win9x first because Microsoft assumes that it is the only OS and will write over the MBA

After you save and edit the file just type lilo, or /sbin/lilo. If you have sparc linus it is slilo but you cant boot dos on sparc so it doesn't matter.

------------------
Wine me, dine me, 1000101 me

This message has been edited by Spydir Web on February 16, 2001 at 08:27 PM