desolator Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Just curious, how many of you have Linux installed and use it on a regular basis? And what Dist do you got? Personally I use both Debian and SuSE 7.2. SuSE for showing new users how to work with Linux (like programming, WM's, and general setup of networks, printers and the like.) and Debian for running a gateway/firewall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterkist Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 We've got Red Hat here. A few are still running 5.2, but the majority runs on 7.0We've been running slackware in the past (we started back in 1992 with a pre 1.0 kernel).I'm happy with it. Had to patch the development environment a bit. We had problems with the compiler, had to downgrade it manually (download source, recompile, install). Other than that, not too many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 I installed Linux-Mandrake a few weeks ago (version 8.0). I haven't had much experience with it (I'm a beginner in the Land of Tux ) but I was very impressed by the installation program and the amazing boost it gives to my Internet connection.Netscape and the half dozen other browsers in Linux that come with Mandrake 8.0 easily tagged and even outran Internet Explorer in Windows. This is no small feat considering IE integrates itself into Windows at the system level for extra speed.As soon as I RTMM and learn how to configure the essentials I will start using it regularly.Hooray for Tux! Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidargo Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hehe ... I have 2 Samba-Fileservers and a DSL-Router/Firewall/Proxy running on RedHat 7.0, just because its SECURE and you can recycle your old machines (Fileservers are Pentium-90 and Pentium-133 with 128 MB RAM each and a total capacity of 90 GBs built from 10 old SCSI HDs ... The Router/FW/Proxy is a 486 DX 2/66 with 32 MB RAM and a 500 MB HD. Network is 10/100 MBit with 5 PCs -> Switch -> Router -> DSL-Modem2 of the Machines at the Switch are Win98 / Win NT, 2 are the mentioned Samba-Filerservers and one is a Ultra Sparc ! I bought the switch, the old PCs and the Ultra Sparc from a company which went down the sink in early 99, I paid 500 Marks altogehter (which is about 230 $ US)That was the BEST thing in my life buying the old machines They do a hell of a job running under Linux Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desolator Posted August 22, 2001 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Just a note, if you want a really REALLY secure box, then install some kind of BSD dist. FreeBSD or OpenBSD are the most secure and stable unix'es I ever used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Schultz Posted August 23, 2001 Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 I had RedHat 7 installed. Installation went OK...after it forced me to replace my CD-ROM (believe it or not, the one I had didn't work with it!). Finding drivers for some of my other hardware took a bit of doing. After all was set up I tootled around it in it, tried out the different desktops (KDE Gnome) and so on. There's a lot of cool stuff.BUT the problem was: there's nothing I can do in it I can't do already in Windows. Sure, if I ever get a second PC in my house one day and decide to do a server dimes to donuts it will be Linux for speed and stability but for my everyday stuff, I didn't need it; it was more like a toy OS for me. Heh, even the GIMP has a Windows port; I didn't even need Linux for that.Anyway, last major upgrade I did I was afraid of how X Windows would react to my latest video card. Plus I was low on PSU voltage so the HD Linux sat on was disconnected. Maybe one day I'll resurrect it, but till then...You know, I think see why Linux doesn't appeal to Joe User.1) The shell terminals. 2) Makefiles and compilers are scary. 3) Hardware drivers don't usually come with the hardware you buy; you have to look for them on the Internet (Joe User may not know how and could also be lazy). Setting it up can be kooky too (plug'n'play support not as robust as Windows). Provided the hardware is compatible with Linux (and some boxes don't even mention Linux and the sales reps are clueless too). 4) Windows is supposed to be more user-friendly and look how much trouble people have with that already (or computers in general) *g* 5) Manual "mounting" of external storage media (floppy disk, CDROM too but they can automount too). 6) It doesn't run MS Office programs (without jumping through additional hoops like emulators). 7) Finding other software isn't as easy as for Windows (e.g. games and family stuff - when's the last time you went to CompUSA or WalMart and saw a comparable amount of Linux games and productivity software in comparison with Windows stuff). 8) It's cheap and so is its software - and to most of the uninformed public, cheap = inferior. A stupid perception but nonetheless real.Linux definitely has the "hard-core" hacker/computer-geek appeal to it. I've tried both, and I appreciate Linux for what it can do. I just prefer Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterkist Posted August 23, 2001 Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Sidargo: Hehe ... just because its SECURE and you can recycle your old machines (Fileservers are Pentium-90 and Pentium-133 with 128 MB RAM each and a total capacity of 90 GBs built from 10 old SCSI HDs ... The Router/FW/Proxy is a 486 DX 2/66 with 32 MB RAM and a 500 MB HD. Network is 10/100 MBit with 5 PCs -> Switch -> Router -> DSL-Modem Our external firewall runs RedHat 6.2. it's an old 386 ? Mhz, 16 Mb edo ram and a 200+ Mb hardisk.Still I get transfer rates of up to 800-900 Kb/sec.How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desolator Posted August 23, 2001 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 Well, I got a reply for those "non-user friendly" linux arguments. (As I see it, windows is only good for one thing. Gaming. And as usual, this is not directed at anyone, just trying to convert more users to the Linux community. "1) The shell terminals."Windows got DOS. Same thing."2) Makefiles and compilers are scary."RPM exists for users that can't handle sourcecodes."3) Hardware drivers don't usually come with the hardware you buy; you have to look for them on the Internet (Joe User may not know how and could also be lazy). Setting it up can be kooky too (plug'n'play support not as robust as Windows). Provided the hardware is compatible with Linux (and some boxes don't even mention Linux and the sales reps are clueless too)."The SuSE dist. can handle most cards, as with Debian. Although we all have to work a little to get our things to work.. "4) Windows is supposed to be more user-friendly and look how much trouble people have with that already (or computers in general) *g*"umm... people that can't handle Windows at all shouldn't try any OS. *evil grin* And Windows isn't exactly brilliantly programmed... Anyway, the reason I use the SuSE dist to get new users into Linux is that it can be configured realively easy, and can have the look and feel of a win-box."5) Manual "mounting" of external storage media (floppy disk, CDROM too but they can automount too)."As you said, automount can do it.. "6) It doesn't run MS Office programs (without jumping through additional hoops like emulators)."Then again, who needs that when there is f.ex StarOffice. or Koffice. "7) Finding other software isn't as easy as for Windows (e.g. games and family stuff - when's the last time you went to CompUSA or WalMart and saw a comparable amount of Linux games and productivity software in comparison with Windows stuff)."Linux is new on the gaming front. Loki Games sells a lot of games for Linux. And freshmeat got tons of software, as do linuxapps."8) It's cheap and so is its software - and to most of the uninformed public, cheap = inferior. A stupid perception but nonetheless real."The most expensive thing doesn't always have to be the greatest thing. Microsoft and IBM is to blame for this mostly. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: desolator ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidargo Posted August 23, 2001 Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Riga: Our external firewall runs RedHat 6.2. it's an old 386 ? Mhz, 16 Mb edo ram and a 200+ Mb hardisk.Still I get transfer rates of up to 800-900 Kb/sec.How's that?Thats Linux Welcome to the real world where OS dont need a Quadrentium 77.5 Terrahertz with 12849382 Pentabyte of RAM ....Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRSWalker Posted August 30, 2001 Report Share Posted August 30, 2001 My Firewall/NAT/Router is a P133 laptop(!) plugged into my cable modem. It uses a completely "from scratch" kernel, for two reasons:1) The Debian installation would not work from a linux-only partition on this particular hardware, and to boot from an MS-DOS micropartition first (urgh!)2) Because I wanted to see if I could do it.In terms of performance, it totally rocks.As a small aside, anyone who owns a laptop, should try installing Linux and the APM software. The battery life for my other laptop went from 1.5 hours under Win98 to 2.25 hours under Linux - ie 50% longer.A friend of mine asked me why I had a Linux firewall, because he had an NT firewall that worked fine. I pointed out to him that "NT firewall" is actually an oxymoron .Regards,Smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now