I don't want a Linux box anymore

[idea]

I built myself a little file server years ago and decided I'd try linux. I went with Slackware 9 and learned a lot about it. I never felt I knew enough though. I keep about 300GB worth of stuff on there and I'm always thinking "what if there's a problem?" I'd never know how to fix it. Not like I know how with Windows, anyway. I just don't feel confident using it.

I made my decision a few minutes ago. I'm adding 2 new hdds to the box, and a PCI SATA controller. And I'm stumped. I honestly have no real idea on how to install a driver in linux. I have kernel 2.4.26, does it support SATA? What if it doesn't? Should I upgrade the kernel to 2.4.31? Is that a stable one? Why hasn't slackware put out an upgrade patch for it then? And whats the deal with 2.6? Why is everyone so crazy about it? It's so confusing and stupid.

All I do on this damn thing is upload files via FTP, then share them across the network using Samba. It's not a big job. I bet Windows can handle it very easily. And who needs SSH when I can just use Remote Desktop anyway?

I'm so done with Linux. I can't believe I haven't made this decision earlier. I'm moving all my data to a NTFS drive and calling it a day. Tomorrow I'll try Windows Server 2003, never used it before but it should be interesting.

 

[Leros]

I went through the same thing. I was going to put Linux on my file server, but I backed out and went with Windows 2000.

 

[Hacp]

I smell a backlash by linux fanatics.

 

[EatSpam]

Load Fedora Core 4... 2.4.x kernels have poor SATA support. Your card will be supported properly by a 2.6.x kernel.

To solve problems, Google is your friend. But first, get a distro with a modern kernel. You'll be much happier.

 

[volrath]

linux is not as great as the fanboys make it out to be

 

[idea]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Load Fedora Core 4... 2.4.x kernels have poor SATA support. Your card will be supported properly by a 2.6.x kernel.

To solve problems, Google is your friend. But first, get a distro with a modern kernel. You'll be much happier.

See, I'm not into that anymore. I've been doing it for years. A problem with linux means hours of reading to get a fix. A problem with Windows means... well, I don't really have any problems with Windows. I just plug-and-play.

I can't see myself backing out of this decision... now all I have to decide is whether I want Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 for a home, light use file server.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Use whatever fits your needs. I myself would not be able to live without a Unix machine. I'm more used to using unix/linux then windows. And part of finding how to fix problems is learning how things work.

You are more comfortable with Windows. I bet however that it did take a long time to get comfortable with Windows (took me several years).

PS: I have absolutely no problems with SATA drives on my linux machine (Gentoo). Using a 2.6 kernel. As for slackware. Slackware is probably the slowest distro to give out more recent software.

You use slackware for stability, not "most advanced/recent software".

(See, each distro has a target audience, apparantly slackware might not be the best choice for you)

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I smell a backlash by linux fanatics.

BACKLASH'D!!!

OK, this would be the general procedure for adding support for a SATA controller:

0. Upgrade (or reinstall) to the newest version of Slackware (10.2). Unpack the latest kernel source. Use a 2.6 kernel for SATA. Learn how to compile a kernel. You find the config file for the default Slack kernels on the install CD if you really don't want to figure out what the config options mean.
1. Find out what chipset the controller uses. This can be done using lspci.
2. Find out what driver the chipset uses. This can be done with a usually small amount of Googling, if not with the kernel documentation itself.
3. Because SATA directly uses the SCSI subsystem, you'll have to enable SCSI disk support at the appropriate place, not to mention the specific low-level SCSI/SATA driver mentioned above.
INFINITY: Compile and install.

Or, you could go with a distro that actually advertises itself as being plug-and-play, which Slackware certainly is not.

But if neither "free as in beer" (read: "price") nor "free as in speech" mean very much to you, there isn't much additional incentive to run Linux or indeed any free OS.

Meh.

 

[djdrastic]

Enjoy the patching .... That's all I can say

I am not a fanboy , I am a Windows Administrator
Oh yeah , and enjoy paying for every piece of little application software that you need like

1)A half decent firewall
2)Half Decent Server AV
3)Half Decent Quota Management Software
4)Encrypted Transferring software
5)Centralize Logging Solution
6)Half Decent Port Detection / IDS System


Note : You can easily transfer files from your windows machines to your linux server via nice GRAPHICAL tools like filezilla / winscp

I'm not flaming , I do admit when you are new it is generally tougher , but when you do become more experienced you create one or 2 scripts , save it on a cd flash / drive and more or less walk away from the installation , and just do monitoring from the log files etc .

 

[idea]

I'm giving it a shot. I'm building a 2.6.13.2 kernel now, the only change I'm making is I found the Promise SATA X2 chipset in the SCSI section.

 

[Panther505]

Well if you are so sure of it why the b!tchin' here? Just buck up and do it. I understand what your complaining about but to me, spending the time reading on how to do something pays a higher divend in the long run. I can and have spent the time reading and to me, the amount of time that I spend doing the reading to get a linux box up and running with only with what I need, is a whole lot easier then getting a system setup and patched with windows, not counting the time/resources that are required to "keep it current" so that you don't have to worry about it getting exploited on a network.

That is the reason that I prefer linux even in a corporate environment that *requires* windows

Panther505

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: idea

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Load Fedora Core 4... 2.4.x kernels have poor SATA support. Your card will be supported properly by a 2.6.x kernel.

To solve problems, Google is your friend. But first, get a distro with a modern kernel. You'll be much happier.

See, I'm not into that anymore. I've been doing it for years. A problem with linux means hours of reading to get a fix. A problem with Windows means... well, I don't really have any problems with Windows. I just plug-and-play.

I can't see myself backing out of this decision... now all I have to decide is whether I want Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 for a home, light use file server.

Granted, Windows is easier and more straight forward than Linux for basic functions. Try installing something like Exchange or Active Directory and watch the learning curve become steeper. I personally use both.

I'd use Windows Server 2003 for your file server. Volume Shadow Copy makes it worthwhile.

 

[nweaver]

I wouldn't, 2k3 server with 5 CALS is hella expensive, and without init 3, it takes a lot more hardware to run.

 

[Tbirdkid]

linux is what you make of it... if you dont take the time... it wont either.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: nweaver
I wouldn't, 2k3 server with 5 CALS is hella expensive, and without init 3, it takes a lot more hardware to run.

If all you want is low-end, 2k3 server will run fine on low end hw. My DC/DNS/WSUS box is a C3@1.3ghz with 512mb RAM. My other DC is a Virtual Machine with 256mb allocated and allows 25% of a P4@3ghz max cpu utilization.

If all the user needs is to serve files inside his home, he can buy a MS Action pack for $300/year and it includes a ton of Microsoft software.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I smell a backlash by linux fanatics.

Yeah. Where the hell is n0cmonkey????

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: nweaver
I wouldn't, 2k3 server with 5 CALS is hella expensive, and without init 3, it takes a lot more hardware to run.

If all you want is low-end, 2k3 server will run fine on low end hw. My DC/DNS/WSUS box is a C3@1.3ghz with 512mb RAM. My other DC is a Virtual Machine with 256mb allocated and allows 25% of a P4@3ghz max cpu utilization.

If all the user needs is to serve files inside his home, he can buy a MS Action pack for $300/year and it includes a ton of Microsoft software.

I can run a fileserver on a P2 200 w/64 megs and no license. And I think you have to qualify for an action pack by being an MS partner or reseller, otherwise every company out there would just buy action packs (as they come with XP pro X3, Office X2, Exchange, etc, at least my companies did)

 

[Seeruk]

Technet Plus has no requirements - Just a crap load of software and betas (inc longhorn) through your door every month :0

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/abouttn/subscriptions/evalsoftware.mspx

Only license restriction is that you use it all for your own evaluation purposes

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Hacp
I smell a backlash by linux fanatics.

Yeah. Where the hell is n0cmonkey????

He's an OpenBSD fanatic

That said, Idea, not to put you down, but it sounds like you don't enjoy tinkering with stuff for the fun of it(most people don't), in which case Slackware is quite possibly the worst distribution you could have picked.
Slack is more about sticking with the UNIX roots, slow but stable updates, minimalistic, leaving most everything to the admin, etc.

There are other distributions that are far more suited to people who wanna get up and running fast, Fedora would be one of them though I don't like it much myself.

As has been said, Linux(and most F/OSS for that matter) is about choice, it sounds to me like you made a bad choice in Slack, but luckily, that can be easily corrected

 

[TGS]

Glad you are giving 2.6 a try. Though is your problem any worse than with XP users trying to install on an SATA drive. With the multitude of push F6 to load the drivers when the CD is booting answers to follow?

All OSes have their quirks, once you get around the small issues it will all become easier. When you come from either side of the fence, the first few attempts are always going to be ackward.

I've found that once you delve into the inner workings of each OS, Linux tends to be a bit easier to hunt down problems.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: volrath
linux is not as great as the fanboys make it out to be

And windows isn't as bad is the security/coding practices/lawers_of_competition fanboys make it out to be? No OS is free from problems. But here this is a clear case of picking the wrong distro.

Mandriva would have been much better and supported sata as far back as 9.2. Maybe paying for windows is peace of mind if its behind a secure lan with no dzm but thats a big price to pay. Personnaly I don't buy into a system to obsolete myself in 18 months and pay for my own demise. PII's are more than enough to run a home file server and the all the home network NAS solutions from companies such as Linksys and the like bare witness to that fact.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: idea
I built myself a little file server years ago and decided I'd try linux. I went with Slackware 9 and learned a lot about it. I never felt I knew enough though. I keep about 300GB worth of stuff on there and I'm always thinking "what if there's a problem?" I'd never know how to fix it. Not like I know how with Windows, anyway. I just don't feel confident using it.

I made my decision a few minutes ago. I'm adding 2 new hdds to the box, and a PCI SATA controller. And I'm stumped. I honestly have no real idea on how to install a driver in linux. I have kernel 2.4.26, does it support SATA? What if it doesn't? Should I upgrade the kernel to 2.4.31? Is that a stable one? Why hasn't slackware put out an upgrade patch for it then? And whats the deal with 2.6? Why is everyone so crazy about it? It's so confusing and stupid.

All I do on this damn thing is upload files via FTP, then share them across the network using Samba. It's not a big job. I bet Windows can handle it very easily. And who needs SSH when I can just use Remote Desktop anyway?

I'm so done with Linux. I can't believe I haven't made this decision earlier. I'm moving all my data to a NTFS drive and calling it a day. Tomorrow I'll try Windows Server 2003, never used it before but it should be interesting.

When the Linux guys come to burn you at the stake are you going to take painkillers or are you going to do it like Braveheart without drugs so you can yell, "Freeeedoooommmm" as you die?

Grats on the move to 2003 btw. It's a great OS and I think you'll dig it.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Smilin
When the Linux guys come to burn you at the stake are you going to take painkillers or are you going to do it like Braveheart without drugs so you can yell, "Freeeedoooommmm" as you die?

What an incredibly inept metaphor.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Hacp
I smell a backlash by linux fanatics.

Yeah. Where the hell is n0cmonkey????

Eating icecream.

 

[Seeruk]

Ubuntu 5.04 (skip 5.10 for the moment it stinks!) installs on a SATA drive no probs at all