i never used *BSD (heard it runs faster and is more secure than Linux) but X server is the same as in linux (right?). So to change the resolution and color depth all you have to do is change settings in "screen" section of XF86Config file and put resolution and color depth you want.
Hope that helps

I wish it were that easy...my mode right now is VGA which doesnt support anything higher than like 400x300 pixals.

I need to fool around with it some more..i know there has to be a way to do it.

Ok as i said i have a similar problem cuz im trying to get two monitors to work and have a X session on each. I plugged the 2nd video card and monitor and i configured it and all i can get is a big resolution (something like 400x300) and it only shows the picture from the bottom of the monitor to exactly half of it! It starts X using half of the monitor while the other half is black. It was really weird so i decided to retry when i get a newer video card (i tried with a old S3 trio64V2/DX that is basically unsupported so it worked only with the generic vga driver. Thats why i couldn't change the resolution, if i did change it in the XF86Config file x would not start with "can't init screen" error. If you find a solution please post it so i can try and fix my problem. Sorry i couldn't help

I thought you always used redhat anyways? I remember once i was telling you about slack and how much beter than redhat it is and i remember getting a very defensive response from, now look, surpirse surprise, here you are about a month later using slack.

In answer to the question posted.The only way that slackware is the most "unix like" is by the way it lays out its boot scripts and some configuration scripts, so this really doesnt mean too much to me either way. Slackware will generally let you have less control over whats booted up when and is more of a pain to configure in terms of order or boot etc. i however tend to prefer its bsd style init over sysV.

They are both very stable, but i would have to say i have had less trouble over all with slackware, and i generally find it to be a supurbly stable distro. if you dont mind having slighty out-of-date libs and programs, and you are running the debian stable branch, then you will have little stability issues as well.

Maybe this is due to lack of experience, but i by no means think debian is *ANY* harder to install than slackware, and if you poster could back this up rather than just making a blind statement, it might benefit someone. I have installed both MANY times over more than 2 years, and i can tell you, if you can do one, you can do the other. both might take you one or two goes to get right initially, but then thats the same with any distro. they are both essentially the same installs as all the other distro install but without the pretty colours and graphics. same process going on underneath.

By the way, please dont post silly things like "Debian is not a distro"...HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

How in the world is debian not a distro?

Becuase its GNU or something i dont know!

well first off, i have always used slackware and experimented with it, i just at one time mainly used redhat as my main distro. so why do you care ??
from a newbie standpoint, it is easier to install slackware over debian, i didn't say it was hard for me, i am saying from someone who has trouble with installing slackware, would have more trouble installing debian.
and debian is not a distro.. ask the developers why, it is defined by the linux community and debian as not being a distribution, not sure totally why though, maybe cause its the only linux OS that is made purely by a community of programmers working together to create the OS, and not a company or corporation making money off of it in anyway... just maybe that is why...

ps, "i am bored by the way", oh and a post from 3 months ago: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=9233, me suggesting slackware or debian.. but i was suggesting redhat over mandrake in that post.
and this thread: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...5&pagenumber=2 totally just stating that originally mandrake was based off of redhat.. not being defensive there...
and those were basically the only threads i was ever in talking about redhat, nothing of me being defensive about redhat or slackware... or the such... so you must be thinking of someone else..

hHAHAAH

settle down there. sorry if that post seemed slighty provocative: i didnt mean it to be

I personally love slackware and i do think it is easier to use than debian, i just felt like arguing the point.

Debian is a complete bitch to install, and i thoroughly dislike the installed.

This sounds like FUD. Debian isn't hard to install at all. Well, dselect (still the best package frontend in Debian) might be tricky to use - but Debian is quite clear with where the configuration is (everything under /etc), and the package management has many advantages over rpm.

So, I don't know what your problems with Debian were, but the installer is quite straight forward and lets you even step back if you think you have done something stupid which most of the other distributions doesn't allow. If you think the lack of a graphical installer makes it the "hardest distro to work with" - well, then I don't know...

well first off, i was speaking in terms of a new person installing linux in whole.. which distro's were easiest and hardest. debian in the linux world is the hardest for anyone to install, but people like you and me don't have these problems cause were familiar with them. so next time read the post more clearly, cause i said it was hard to install, not that it was hard for me to install.

-trickykid

Debian uses the Linux kernel also. It IS a Linux distro and the GNU is just an acronym meaning GNU's Not Unix describing the project of the FSF to created a free Unix-like OS.

Sorry, I still like to disagree. And you got me wrong. I know that Debian is harder to install than SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake. But that wasn't the question!! The question was the install of Debian compared to the install of Slackware. In general you are right, that Debian is quite hard to install (on the other hand, people that can read tend to have less problems than people that want to "just install it - why do I have to read anything at all?!?".

So please don't get angry - I have read your post and you compared the install of Debian to the install of Slackware in there - and not to a Linuxinstall in general. Please stick to your own sugguestions when answering.

Ok, let me clear myself then, anyone who doesn't agree doesn't have to say anything, but Debian is voted and is the hardest Linux OS to use and install. Cut the crap, as probably over 90% of people agree, except maybe someone like you who uses Debian. Sorry I didn't make myself more clearly, when i said in linux in whole, I meant a new person installing either slackware or debian. that whole, is meant whole=debian or slackware ( for new users installing either one ) I personally didn't mean all of linux distro's.

You just replied saying that you agree that Debian is harder to install.. so whats your problem then and what do you disagree with?? Don't even reply to my post, as I am done arguing with you.

hm... personal opinion here.

i've done successful as well as unsuccessful installs for deb and slack. i prefer slack. probably because i could get it right more times and got a lot of help from this forum while i was at it. this can only mean one thing. i'm biased.

only thing i wish is that the file system used in slack 8 is ext3. i suppose the same effect can be achieved with ext2 and reiserfs but i don't know how reiserfs works as yet.

as for freebsd...
i think stability-wise, linux and freebsd are going to be on par soon. as for security, the comparision shouldn't be between linux and freebsd per se. all the different distros have different policies and these influence what packages go into its releases and how things are configured during the install. it's up to you to secure it after that. apparently, redhat tends to be more progressive while slack is more conservative. this probably also means less secure for redhat initially but if you hunt down the possible exploits, disable unecessary daemons, go through your logs regularly etc etc, you would probably be able to cover your box. freebsd also needs securing out of the box... soooo i think the issue of security here is kinda irrelevant in some way? unless u're comparing across linux distros as well (and not linux as a whole) ...

the only OS so far i know of that boasts of "2 years in a default install without a remote hole" is openbsd.

ever since i started on it, my vote has always been for slack over deb.

Just install both. I've got a triple boot with Win2k, Slack8 and Debian Woody(soon to be Sid) and I couldn't do without either!

Completely agree, and I would add that the concept of GNU/Linux OS can be applied to virtually every "Linux distro", since they are built around the linux kernel but have it work and interact with you by means of GNU software. Stallman had it all in mind and, toghether with some other hackers (the FSF), started writing software (even the most basic: bash, ls, mv...) to achieve a free unix-like OS. Then (1991) they adopted Torvalds' kernel and now we have GNU/Linux, that almost everybody simplify in Linux.

Debian is the direct descendant of the original sin and they are more independent from the "Torvalds Linux way" (see GNU/Hurd...), so they tend to be more clear and say "GNU/Linux". That's why I *prefer* Debian's approach to Linux and GNU -although I highly appreciate slack-

By the way right now I'm loving apt-get and invite taz.devil and other slackers to give it a try (unless you've already done it!)

ciao!

el_felipe