LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Fedora
User Name
Password
Fedora This forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-11-2004, 12:53 PM   #1
otherJohn
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Suggestions? Fedora (2/3) or REDHAT 9


Hi all. Here is my situation. I am relatively new with *nix and want to run a *nix based CVS server for our projects. Some Project members will need to securly reach the server via internet, while others via ethernet.
My server for this is an old dell 200 somthing,PII processor with i think 64 mb of ram, but it might be only 32mb.
I tried SuSE 9.1 and its exctreemly slow. I had at one time REDHAT 7 and it ran faster than SuSE. But my question is,
what does anyone recomend for this situation.
We will run mono, CVS (subversion), and VNC or VPN (still confused on the differences)
Should i go with REDHAT 9 or Fedora. If Fedora, should i run 2 or 3?
thanks
John
 
Old 11-12-2004, 02:22 AM   #2
maxut
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: istanbul
Distribution: debian - redhat - others
Posts: 1,188

Rep: Reputation: 50
if i were u, i would go with slackware. i think it is the best choice for slow hardwares.
 
Old 11-19-2004, 12:45 PM   #3
Motown
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: land of oz
Distribution: centos
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 15
Well, fedora is seriously secure out of the box but, it's BIG. I guess that doesn't matter if you don't run X. However, it's p4 optimized. I'm not 100% sure, but you might not get the most out of your hardware with fc2/3. In terms of 2 vs 3, go for three. Fewer security updates to download, and newer software.
 
Old 11-19-2004, 01:01 PM   #4
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
I think Debian or Slackware would be ideal for you. I'd recommend Fedora but will not for the reasons mentioned in the post above.
 
Old 11-20-2004, 06:40 PM   #5
birras
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
with these specc...pff I would not take rh or fc in consideration, not even in text mode...you wont be able to run x i suppose

my rh and fc1 needs + - 170mb ram at boot...so imagine....
 
Old 11-20-2004, 06:56 PM   #6
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
yeah something like Slack would be ideal. I wouldn't recommend Redhat 9, it's an old distro thats no longer officially supported by Redhat even though you can still get support from other people/companies I don't believe it's worth the hassle. Fedora would have been ideal for you. vut your hardware is really modest so you need a distro that won't guzzle up a lot of resources whilst it's just booting up.
 
Old 11-20-2004, 07:27 PM   #7
teckk
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: FreeBSD Arch
Posts: 1,752

Rep: Reputation: 189Reputation: 189
I'm using Fedora C2 on a PIII 733 128MB pc133 20Gig UDMA 66 HD with Firefox, Evolution, Kmail, KDE etc.
I think that it is as fast as Win XP on the same box.
It is a bit faster loading Apps. than Mandrake I think.

I also have it on a Celeron 366 196MB pc66 6Gig UDMA33 HD with Gnome. (Gnome is lighter than KDE I think) it works ok but you have to wait 20 seconds for Firefox to open on first instance. But it is a perfectly usable machine. As you would expect the email clients, browsers, file managers, take a bit longer to get open.

I have Debian on a PII 400 and I would say that it is a bit faster to boot and to load apps than Fedora.

Whichever distro you choose I would buy 128MB more RAM for it. Adding more RAM to a Linux box will perk it up. I would not even try to use a box with less than 128MB. And even then it starts swapping right away.

There are also some lighter window managers that you can try that will take up less sys resources. IceWM is one. You won't get the full bodied functionality of a KDE, but it does provide a GUI to operate in.
 
Old 11-21-2004, 03:16 AM   #8
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 73
I wouldn't totally agree with you (and so would a lot of other people) that GNOME is a lot lighter than KDE. You can pick and choose what you want to install in KDE, so you can end up with a very minimal install, eg, you can just install kde-libs and kdebase and, you'll have a fully functional KDE desktop.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
display horizantly shifted for redhat 9.0, redhat enterprise and fedora core dudely Linux - Enterprise 3 08-13-2005 12:28 PM
Fedora core 2 wireless G suggestions Atrocity Linux - Wireless Networking 2 09-30-2004 08:04 AM
Fedora as server? suggestions? el_pajaro! Fedora 2 08-17-2004 04:56 PM
Suggestions for installing/compiling on RedHat Dan_471 Linux - Newbie 4 05-03-2004 08:39 PM
Redhat 9 On Omnibook xt6200 - Suggestions? andreas.ling Linux - Laptop and Netbook 3 12-14-2003 07:18 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration