|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
whtdrgn_2 
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 155
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 08 2001,05:15 |
|
   |
Slashdot is a debian job, I like Suse, but am forced to use Red Hat. Go with what is cheapest. Debian!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
a.out
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: Jan. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2001,00:09 |
|
 |
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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
aventari
Jedi Knight
Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2001,01:01 |
|
|
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." -
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Spydir Web
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2001,02:09 |
|
|
red hat sucks because it's pretty buggy with the 7.0 install, and when I ran 6.1 I could never get my FAT32 partition to work, and neither could 12 of my friends who ran 6.1 on their computers.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/
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Spydir Web
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2001,14:23 |
|
|
Actually yes, I do have dense friends, but these 12 are not them. A couple upgraded to 6.2 and never had the problem again.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/
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Dark Knight Bob
qunt
Group: Members
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sep. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2001,15:48 |
|
|
anywazy back to my question on the two harddrives please
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Dark Knight Bob
qunt
Group: Members
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sep. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 11 2001,21:12 |
|
|
yeah ok but what about performance wise does it makemuch of a difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
