Update: Redhat 7.0 vs. Mandrake 7.2

[KidViciou$]

i just downloaded the 2 ja...iso discs from the redhat ftp.

are these the correct discs for me to burn in order to install REDHAT 7.0 on my server?

i forgot the name of the other 2 discs, but thought these were correct.


update: now that i think about it, how does REDHAT hold up to mandrake? im talking in terms of running a server

 

[Damaged]

All you should need are:

7.0-i386-disc1.iso, and
7.0-i386-disc2.iso

 

[The Stigenator]

sorry mate, I dont have RH7 on hand, but I did get it from an ISO too.

 

[KidViciou$]

yea, the exact filename is 7.0-ja-i386-disc1(2).iso

the other disc i was unsure about is 7.0-respin-disc1(2).iso


goodguy, dont feel obligated to me in anyway

im just anxious to get that usb and plugnplay capability IN LINUX!!!!

 

[JW310]

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe you want the ISO files with the respin name in them, not the JA ones© Not sure if the JA ones will work for you or not©

edit: If you can't find the file names Damaged posted above, try them with the respin in the name, between the i386 and the disc number© Those should work for you©

JW

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Redhat's site says to download the respin discs. Did that, burned 'em and installed it yesterday. Maybe you should check to make sure you've got the right one.

 

[Damaged]

I don't use RH anymore. I switched to Debian when 2.2 came out, so I haven't been real up on RH 7.

I was wondering about the respin discs since RH 7 had so many problems.

 

[KidViciou$]

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

damn it, ill start the download before i leave, because it SLOWS MY SYSTEM i download so fast.

grrrrr, i was hoping ja.iso discs were correct.

 

[KidViciou$]

^

 

[SUOrangeman]

I think respin is English. Could the "ja" mean it's another default language?

-SUO

 

[andri]

Putting Mandrake on a server is stupid. Just like using Windows on a server - what was built for desktop should remain there.

RH7.0 is actually quite bad (problems with glibc, cvs gcc included in stable distro etc). I'd recommend sticking to 6.2, or switching to Debian.

 

[Damaged]

I don't know if I agree that using Mandrake as a server is necessarily stupid, but I will agree that it is aiimed at the desktop and not the server environment.

Does this necessitate that it wouldn't make a good server? No, it just means that you better know your Linux AND your distro pretty well if you choose to use it as a server.

I definitely agree that Debian is a better choice. Heck, I think Debian 2.3 (woody) with Helix/Gnome and Sawfish is a great desktop. But that's me. One GREAT advantage of Debian is that .deb packages have far, far superior dependencies than do .rpm packages. Very important for a server.

Personally, you have to like something like FreeBSD where you can upgrade the entire server while it's running. makeworld rules!!!

 

[KidViciou$]

OMG!!! STOP CONFUSING ME!!!

i have NEVER heard of debian, im new to the linux scene. thats why i would like to something more mainstream for the beginning part of my venture into unknown territories. so you suggest that i stick with 6.2? is that until they fix up redhat 7?

 

[AfterBurn]

IMO Mandrake is superior to RH. Better security features, better choice of server daemons, and not unimportantly, all packages are optimized for 6x86 CPU's, which makes them a lot faster than the 3x86 from RH.

 

[velvtelvis]

I've had decent luck with Mandrake 7.0 thus far, but I've not had much time to hack around with it.

I used Turbo/Samba a while back as a file server and was quite happy with it.

As much as I like open-source and all that, Debian can be a pain in the ass.

 

[Zach]

I use Redhat 7, and haven't had any problems yet, although I've only had to compile one program so far... I just run the like 20 update rpm's after installing...

And what's with the net ISO names? I have disks from the original ISO's... are they updated maybe?