LINUX for Noobs. Distributions, experiences, help, etc

[element86]

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

[factorg]

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 google\Linux

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

Unofficial Fedora Core2 guide

Fedora Core2 tips & Tricks

Use this link for software packages you might need/want

freshrpms

Documentation can be found here

The Linux Documentation Project

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

Hope this is helpful and good luck

[element86]

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

[factorg]

thanks for the info, factorg.

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

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 Red Hat Manuals 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).

Additionally, whats an rpm?

thanks,
element

An rpm is a package containing software and/or documentation. You use rpm to install software basically. Read
this
and it should explain a few things for you regarding rpm's.

[arielus]

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

[Civic_Zen]

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.

[peloquin]

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

(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 don't put linux and windows on the same HD, thats just asking for trouble, trust me

[audiotherapy]

get knoppix and try linux without the partition commitment

https://www.knoppix.de

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

[element86]

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

[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.

[element86]

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.

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?

[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

[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. :wink:

http://www.phlak.org/modules/news/

[element86]

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

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?

[element86]

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. :wink:

http://www.phlak.org/modules/news/

thanks ill check that one too