Linux Distro suggestions

[BobDaMenkey]

I've got another computer on my hands, for doing just about anything I really please with.

Specs:
800MHZ Pentium 3 Coppermine
127mb PC100 (1mb for onboard graphics)
10gb Hard drive

No AGP slot, though there are 4 open PCIs. I'd like to learn linux, and possibly use it for what most people out it the most for: running servers and serving as uber firewalls.

My WinXP network goes like this : Cable Modem > Main rig > Switch > Other computers

Obviously, my main rig is rather vunerable to any sort of bad action by outsiders on my network. Putting up a Linux box would help secure my network, and give me geek bonus points.

But obviously I'm very well limited by my RAM. I haven't got anything else that the computer will accept either (It doesn't like my 128mb PC100 sticks for some reason) so I might well not be able to use the computer for these type of things. Having something to mess around with entices me though. So suggest to me what I should do with it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[kamper]

If you're just looking for a firewall I believe smoothwall comes highly reccomended.

 

[Nothinman]

127M is more than enough if all you want it to do is firewalling and some light server duty. My home mail, web, dns, dhcp, mysql and syslog server only has 256M.

As usual, I suggest Debian, but it depends on how willing to learn and patient you really are.

 

[nvbtye]

mwtlgc

 

[silverpig]

I have smoothwall running on a P3 450 128 MB ram. Current uptime of 72 days

It's great and easy to set up. The hardware I've got it on is overkill though. I could run it on a P75 with 32 MB ram.

It doesn't do all that much else though, so if you really wanted to learn linux, then try another distro. They're not as easy to set up as routers/firewalls though.

 

[Infohawk]

How much time do you have?

Debian/slackware if you have a lot of time and want to get dirty and have a lot of control.

Fedora/Mandrake would take less time though for other server stuff.

 

[Davegod75]

smoothwall is great for a firewall

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Davegod75
smoothwall is great for a firewall

 

[BobDaMenkey]

After some further thought, I'm going to try and use Debian, with Shorewall. Smoothwall sounds awesome, but I'd also like to learn some of the guts n bolts of Linux, not just set something up and forget about it forever.

Although by doing this whole thing, I'm going to have fun the next time I host a LAN party trying to get everyone working well on the network, at least that's the feeling I have

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: kamper
If you're just looking for a firewall I believe smoothwall comes highly reccomended.

That's way overkill for a Smoothwall. Get a $10 P200 machine for a Smoothwall (seriously, Smoothwall rocks like that). A PIII 800 should make a decent desktop box, or a RHEL3-based firewall/fileserver box. Or fine, Debian...

 

[tm37]

No One mentioned Clark Connect!

Clark connect gives you fire wall and file server and web server and a slew of other stuff.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tm37
No One mentioned Clark Connect!

Clark connect gives you fire wall and file server and web server and a slew of other stuff.

Firewalls and file serving services shouldn't be present on the same machine.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tm37
No One mentioned Clark Connect!

Clark connect gives you fire wall and file server and web server and a slew of other stuff.

Firewalls and file serving services shouldn't be present on the same machine.

WHile I totally agree with you on this for comercial setups however for most of us home users it is fine.

Our chance of getting hacked is relitively small CC is going to stop most of the script kidies, most of us don't have the resourses to have both a firewall and server and this little thing does the job nicely for HOME USERS

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tm37
No One mentioned Clark Connect!

Clark connect gives you fire wall and file server and web server and a slew of other stuff.

Firewalls and file serving services shouldn't be present on the same machine.

WHile I totally agree with you on this for comercial setups however for most of us home users it is fine.

Our chance of getting hacked is relitively small CC is going to stop most of the script kidies, most of us don't have the resourses to have both a firewall and server and this little thing does the job nicely for HOME USERS

I'll still disagree. I can see putting multiple services on one machine, just not on the machine that is supposed to be invulnerable.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tm37
No One mentioned Clark Connect!

Clark connect gives you fire wall and file server and web server and a slew of other stuff.

Firewalls and file serving services shouldn't be present on the same machine.

WHile I totally agree with you on this for comercial setups however for most of us home users it is fine.

Our chance of getting hacked is relitively small CC is going to stop most of the script kidies, most of us don't have the resourses to have both a firewall and server and this little thing does the job nicely for HOME USERS

I'll still disagree. I can see putting multiple services on one machine, just not on the machine that is supposed to be invulnerable.

My idea is that NO SYSTEM is perfect and while I do respect your opinion (hell you know more than me on this stuff) I also am a realist.

If someone was to get past the firewall then they would have acess to the fire server behind that firewall would they not? SO why is it such a big deal to have a system do both?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tm37
My idea is that NO SYSTEM is perfect and while I do respect your opinion (hell you know more than me on this stuff) I also am a realist.

If someone was to get past the firewall then they would have acess to the fire server behind that firewall would they not? SO why is it such a big deal to have a system do both?

Why not? Because having the file serving software on that firewall machine might make it easier for someone to get through it.

There are ways to make it an increadibly small possibility, but I'm an idealist.

If you only have the one machine, get a linksys router.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude. I'm not trying to be.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tm37
My idea is that NO SYSTEM is perfect and while I do respect your opinion (hell you know more than me on this stuff) I also am a realist.

If someone was to get past the firewall then they would have acess to the fire server behind that firewall would they not? SO why is it such a big deal to have a system do both?

Why not? Because having the file serving software on that firewall machine might make it easier for someone to get through it.

There are ways to make it an increadibly small possibility, but I'm an idealist.

If you only have the one machine, get a linksys router.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude. I'm not trying to be.

Not rude and I am interested in learning what others opinions are.

I do like the flexibity and ease of use of CC and I am thinking of making a dedicated smooth wall firewall and then builing a fileserver with a few drives but I have not yet.

I am an idealist on many angles but having worked with technology for the past ten years it makes no difference there is no such thing as a perfect solution

 

[drag]

Ya, there are quite a few things that you can do to a firewall to make it very secure that you can't do to a fileserver.

And there a couple things you can do to a fileserver... So having one machine do both you kinda get the worst of both worlds,

Now if security isn't that big of a issue, and good enough is good enough, then have at it. Doesn't bother me if people want the firewall/router and the server be the same machine. It's certainly more secure then having a file server without a firewall.