Wanting to get started in Linux.

[cheesehead]

After hearing about how nifty Linux is, and wishing I could do something with older-model PCs, I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for starting out in Linux.
I've got an older PC, a Celeron 600 box with 192mb of RAM. Should I go for Ubuntu?
Also, does anyone have any ideas for configuring PC's as file or print servers using linux? Geeks.com sells IDE RAID PCI adapters for 15$, and I was wondering how well it would work to use a computer not unlike this one as a file server. (a 10/100 ethernet card would be used; the other computers also use 10/100, so gigabit makes no sense.)

 

[pkme2]

You could try Fedora Core 4 because its acts like Windows 2000; it finds all the drivers for your installed hardware. If you using an older rig, this is the way to go.
If you have a recent or newer unit, then Ubuntu would work. Using Ubuntu may not be condusive to finding any old out-of-date hardware drivers. Otherwise. according to the AT postings, this seems the way of the future. Your choice.

 

[Slowlearner]

All Linux distributions are pretty similar with minor differences - I have tried out Fedora Core 4/Ubuntu/Simply Mepis/Xandros/Suse 10 and have finally settled on Suse 10. Fedora Core 4 is particularly attractive becuase HP offer a free online course @ http://h30187.www3.hp.com/index.jsp every couple of weeks thats useful for newcomers, and its supported by Redhat so that updates (too many - are available), the same with Suse - online documentation is quite extensive.

Before selecting a distro burn a live CD for any these and try it out on your hardware so any problems will be immediately apparent. Most distros do like newer hardware and bios, they are slow on slow computers as they load a ton of services. Configuring a linux box as a file server is well documented - but I am having a hard time setting one up to backup data from Windows PCs.

While all linux dist are great at figuring out on their own all the hardware and locating appropriate drivers etc, and occasional piece of equipment will give them trouble so I would be careful with the noname raid adapter from geeks.

 

[networkman]

This week I'll be trying Ubuntu 5.1 on an older HP(p3-700) machine to see how it does in detecting all of the hardware(scsi - no ide).

It worked great on a newer Biostar motherboard with onboard vid/snd/lan/SATA, and Sempron 2400 cpu.

 

[Nothinman]

Using Ubuntu may not be condusive to finding any old out-of-date hardware drivers.

They use virtually the same kernel with the same drivers, I'd be interested in hearing about anything FC setup properly that Ubuntu didn't.

Geeks.com sells IDE RAID PCI adapters for 15$, and I was wondering how well it would work to use a computer not unlike this one as a file server. (a 10/100 ethernet card would be used; the other computers also use 10/100, so gigabit makes no sense.)

It'll probalby be fine, it would be better to know what chipset the controller uses so you can be sure it'll work but software wise you'll have everything you need.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Using Ubuntu may not be condusive to finding any old out-of-date hardware drivers.

They use virtually the same kernel with the same drivers, I'd be interested in hearing about anything FC setup properly that Ubuntu didn't.

Geeks.com sells IDE RAID PCI adapters for 15$, and I was wondering how well it would work to use a computer not unlike this one as a file server. (a 10/100 ethernet card would be used; the other computers also use 10/100, so gigabit makes no sense.)

It'll probalby be fine, it would be better to know what chipset the controller uses so you can be sure it'll work but software wise you'll have everything you need.

Yes they all use the same kernel Nothinman, but that's not the issue, it's how they take advantage of that kernel, now that's the difference.
And did I hear you asking about if there's something that Ubuntu failed to setup correctly, well let me expand your horizons a little bit.
A while ago when I was new to Linux and trying to see which distro is the est for me, I received Ubuntu CD s straight from Ubuntu, downloaded 20+ Linux distros and lots of Live CD s, but I wanted something with good support and a big user base. So kept filtering Distors until I ended up with Fedora Core and Ubuntu, tried a Live CD of Fedora Core it's called Basilisk and it worked nicely, ok tried a live CD of Ubuntu, and it worked ok. So I said I am going to install Ubuntu for a week and then install Fedora for a week and see which one I will opt for. Took the Ubuntu CD and tried to install on my Athlon 64 rig, and it came up with a retarded interface the installation wasn't friendly and didn't allow me to handpick the type of apps that I want in there, ok no big deal, I setup everything that the installer asks me to do, and then it formatted my hdd and installed, ok the setup is complete now I reboot, at boot it loads then it ends up with a whole bunch of failures and that's about it. No GUI no nothing, I said maybe it's my machine that has some incompatible devices or something.
OK put it on my trusty IBM Intellistation E-pro running legacy hardware, PII 450 512MB ram, 20 GB hdd , then did the same thing and the system failed to load Ubunut, then tried it on my backup system and Athlon XP system and it failed the same way. I said enough of Ubuntu . Put Fedora Core in there and wow, I got GUI for the setup it has a simple organized layout, it I pick what apps I want and what I don't want and get everything up and running , and it ran without a hitch on all y systems and from that day I knew Fedora Core is superior to Ubuntu and used it as my Windows XP replacement OS and I never regretted the choice.
Now days go by the Ubuntu folks send me the newest version Hoary hedgehog Live Cd and install CD, I said will let me give it another shot, guess what on all my systems again Ubuntu fails in both the live CD and the install.
So there you go Fedora Core was able to set things properly on a variety of systems while Ubuntu couldn't.

 

[DasFox]

Cheesehead,

Just go to DistroWatch: http://distrowatch.com/ and start at the top with Ubuntu and work your way down playing with different ones when the urge moves you.

The truth is Linux is Linux, there are slight variations, but most of them are just personal preferences as to why some people will choose one over another, so really the only way to know is to try them and after you have done that, then in time you will know which Linux is you!

This ain't no Windows as we say, there are many differnet versions, AKA (Distros), with different types of tools and other things, not to mention all the desktops and window managers to choose from, "Window Managers for X":

http://xwinman.org/

I've run Linux 6 years, I've used Debian, Gentoo, Lindows, now named Linspire, Lycoris, Mandrake, now known as Mandriva, Phat Linux, RedHat before it branched off to Fedora, Slackware, Storm, SuSe, Ubuntu, and Yoper.

And I've run a few Unixs' as well, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris.

You'll hear heaps of stories about this, that and the other, but you'll never know really until you try them.

Have Fun!

P.S. If you really want to learn Unix/Linux join "Freenode" http://www.freenode.net/ (irc.freenode.net), it's the largest open source IRC server in the world and a great place to learn. These people are hardcore, I learned Linux here as well from many people.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes they all use the same kernel Nothinman, but that's not the issue, it's how they take advantage of that kernel, now that's the difference.

Right. Please explain how one takes better advantage of the kernel than the other.

and it came up with a retarded interface the installation wasn't friendly and didn't allow me to handpick the type of apps that I want in there,

The default installation assumes you don't know what you want so the base set of packages is preset. If you want to hand pick them run it in 'expert' mode.

Now days go by the Ubuntu folks send me the newest version Hoary hedgehog Live Cd and install CD, I said will let me give it another shot, guess what on all my systems again Ubuntu fails in both the live CD and the install.

How many bug reports did you file? How do you expect them to fix bugs if you don't tell them about them?

 

[sourceninja]

I've never had ubuntu fail on any of my pc's. My p4 setup, my AMD xp setup, my AMD64 setup. With intel i875p chipsets, via chipsets, nforce 2, 3, and 4 chipsets, onboard sound, sound blaster, nvidia video cards, all sorts of ethernet cards, an array of dvd /cd burners, and sata hard drives. Its always worked. It even works on my old p3 machine (and I dont even know what is in it, it just works). And it works on my old p2 router with 3com nics.

My current choice is gentoo, but I always point people at ubuntu to get started in linux, with FC4 as a close second. I would say that ubuntu will get you used to the linux way more then something like suse (which has yast for everything) so you will know what to do if you get any debian based system, and its skillsets transfer to most distros. With FC4 you will get that as well, but you will get more of the redhat way which I've found is a little different.

 

[Doh!]

Cheesehead,

If this is your first time at linux, at first, you may become a little agitated or frustrated because it's different from Windows. The difference at first may seem gigantic (i.e., using terminal to configure/customize your system) but if you're willing to spend a few days just playing round with it (even if you don't know what you're doing), you'll become very comfortable using it in no time. Whenever you feel like you're stuck, just post a question here or the distro forum (in addition to google).
The reason I'm saying this is because I've seen too many long-time Windows users giving up on linux only after a couple days of trying. Good luck.