Linux, Where to start?

[JMWarren]

Anyone recommend a build for me?

Advice?

I did install redhat YEARS ago...never really got into it though.

Thanks!

Mike

 

[Brazen]

What do you want to do? You can look around on distrowatch and find good recommendations for distros. My short answer is: CentOS for servers, Ubuntu for desktops.

 

[JMWarren]

I'm just planning to run it for the hell of it, probably desktop use at first, then i may throw it on one of my old PC and use it as a server...

Thanks!

 

[drag]

For most people Ubuntu is a good starting point. They have good forums and a few different wiki websites were you can get good information about solving common problems.

For server systems with low memory they have a 'alternative install cdrom' which doesn't require much ram.

After you get used to it then you can try out different ones. Some people will end up sticking with Ubuntu, other people will like other systems.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Go with Ubuntu Edgy when the final release comes out tomorrow, or Fedora Core 6, although I personally like apt a lot.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Install it in VMWare or VirtualPC if you don't want to mess up a current install. It's always a possibility, especially when you're new.

 

[JMWarren]

Which build should I get? My overclock is 100% stable for the past few years, but I'm worried that the 64bit portion of the core may not be as it's never been utilized or tested. Is there an advantege to using the 64-bit version?

 

[Brazen]

Well if you started with Ubuntu, a lot of knowledge you gain will transfer to other distros. However, the package managers will be different and some distros have customer configuration scripts. Any of this, though, should work the same on Ubuntu and Debian (another great server distro that Ubuntu works closely with).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Use a 32bit distro if you want stuff like flash or most multimedia codecs.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Which build should I get? My overclock is 100% stable for the past few years, but I'm worried that the 64bit portion of the core may not be as it's never been utilized or tested. Is there an advantege to using the 64-bit version?

I've still been sticking with 32-bit builds because there have still been some compatibility issues with 64-bit. Right now, the real question is: is there any advantage to going with 64-bit. If you have less than 4 GB of RAM, the answer is probably "no."

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: JMWarren
Which build should I get? My overclock is 100% stable for the past few years, but I'm worried that the 64bit portion of the core may not be as it's never been utilized or tested. Is there an advantege to using the 64-bit version?

I've still been sticking with 32-bit builds because there have still been some compatibility issues with 64-bit. Right now, the real question is: is there any advantage to going with 64-bit. If you have less than 4 GB of RAM, the answer is probably "no."

Thats kind of what I figured. Looks like I'll wait for Ubuntu Edgy tommorow and give it a go! I'm going use a seperate drive from my main install...shouldn't corrupt the my XP install that way...maybe I'll even pull the power from the XP drive while I do the install.

 

[Brazen]

maybe I'll even pull the power from the XP drive while I do the install.

If you want to easily dual-boot, then that would be the best idea.

 

[Nothinman]

Which build should I get? My overclock is 100% stable for the past few years, but I'm worried that the 64bit portion of the core may not be as it's never been utilized or tested. Is there an advantege to using the 64-bit version?

Even if it's 100% stable in Windows it might not be in Linux, for some reason Linux seems more sensitive to those things. So if you have problems you might want to think about turning it down a bit. And frankly with as fast as things are now I don't really see the reason for overclocking anything.

Use a 32bit distro if you want stuff like flash or most multimedia codecs.

I've been using Debian's AMD64 port and have yet to find a video that mplayer without w32codecs won't play. ffmpeg handles a lot of the WMV and QuickTime files out there, but I might just be lucky in that mine are all old versions or something. And no flash is a good thing, although I do have a 32-bit chroot setup for when I need it.

I've still been sticking with 32-bit builds because there have still been some compatibility issues with 64-bit. Right now, the real question is: is there any advantage to going with 64-bit. If you have less than 4 GB of RAM, the answer is probably "no."

I've only been using Debian for AMD64 for a week or two but I have yet to run into any of these compatibility issues. Flash is the only thing so far that's needed a 32-bit chroot, even VMWare Server runs fine on a 64-bit host with the right compat packages installed. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I don't think they're as prevalent as some people believe.

 

[Slowlearner]

OP, HP offers a free online course Linux 101 @ http://h30187.www3.hp.com/index.jsp. Going thru this 4-5 lessons will give a good idea of what to expect. Trying to configure an old Compaq PIII at work for a file server, the only area I had some difficulty was configuring Samba for connecting to and from Win XP pcs.

I have tried out Fedora Core 4, Ubuntu, Suse and Opensuse, Simply Mepis, Xandros - they all ran fine, and were pretty simple to install. To check out your hardware, burn a Knoppix Live CD, and load it to check compatibility, unless you have a particularly troublesome hardware item - all the distros should have no problems. On the whole, Ubuntu looks good, the others are comparable though as matter of fact they look the same to me.

 

[pkme2]

I install Ubuntu for my clients who just need something friendly and easy to learn. A couple of short lessons and there're on the path to bliss, IMO.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Ubuntu is best for begginers, K desktop is more Windowsy, but i personally prefer Gnome