Dang...Finally got the CD's to work, and installed RH8.

What I see is a newb-type linux, (very much different IMO than previous versions like 6-7), that seems to take all the power out of linux, and put a MacOS-type interface into it.

Upon default install, and also Workstation install, I have no icon for Console on the 'bluecurve' desktop. What the crap? Who can use linux without a console.

Im fed up with Redhat, although they made a newbie-style distro that works great for regular users, its a HUGE change since RH6, and takes all the 'fun' out of Linux. With all the pretty colors theyve added in RH8, they still cant get my desktop to run at 75hz, default, until after I installed the specific Nvidia glx/drivers.

Please recommend me a real version of linux, in which I can easily program C++/Java/Php and run servers without going through lame gui's.

Ive heard Debian is probably more to my liking,....I dont mind setting up packages with apt-get, but Id like to see a distro with some hardware-detection (i.e. soundcard like RH8).

Thanks for any suggestions.

I use it. I think it's great.
Debian that is....

Pronounced Deb - Ian

www.debian.org

Ringo.....

redhat may look like a box of sweets by deafult but there's nothing stopping you removing it. not meaning this in any negative sense, but if you think you know all that, learn to remove it, : install a different window manager etc... you seem to be judgeing an entire distribution by one single deskop environment (which yeah.. sucks...) but you can do whatever you want to it...

hmmm whats a real linux without a console??
well if u like CLI that much...why installing a gui then..
dont take me wrong.. I've never seen the gui of RH at all.because I never install X on my RH servers .... but I think RH is still sweet

Debian, Slackware, ArchLinux, Crux and LFS to name a few distros that let you do majority of the work!

I installed a different gui....compiled some programs, got Xawtv working, and yeah it 'does' work. I still though, would like to try another distro. Downloading debian now....

I should have probably named my post 'Redhat's default installs suck'. Sorry to so quickly judge it that way. The distro works fine, but whenever you select gnome/KDE in the installation, that nasty bluecurve stuff shows up, and the illogical layout of the menu's and stuff doesnt make sense. (plus why cant I play mp3's with Redhat right outta the box?) default installs dont install mp3 decoder??? Xmms wont play them.

Their purpose in version 8 was to make it a desktop operating system. And I admire them for that. They are trying to expand the horizons of Linux by making it work for grandma and grandpa. Most end-users don't have a clue about CLI. This is the market that RedHat was going after here with version 8.

I have many years now of system admin experience and have always wondered about the old beliefs about CLI. I personally use CLI for about 90% of my work, but don't have a problem with a GUI if it is available. I just don't subscribe to the BS argument that you aren't a true system admin if you don't use the command line. I believe you are a true system admin if your system performs and is secure. How you get there is irrelevant.

My preference is for tools like smit/smitty in AIX or SAM for HP-UX that do things in a GUI but give you an option to dump the current operation to a file for later use as a CLI (or in a script).

As said RH is nice as a desktop distro ... if you want to use RedHat as server distro, have fun securing it (first point), after that it's never as stable and compatible as a Debian system ...

I also recommend Debian or Slackware ! For securing a Debian system there's a pretty nice HOWTO

that's the biggest BS u can picture..
first of all.. Debian is more secure by default..but u can secure any linux box as good as u want..
compatibility with Debian? Why the hell should RH be compatible with Debian? they both are LSB compliant

I work with RH servers.. and I can secure them perfectly.. and RH not being stable?? one of those has run for 600 days atm.. with full load u dont call that stable??

Of course Debian is more secure by default, I didn't mention it isn't. But based on this default security you can enhance it with the document pointed out!

And also it's sure that you can secure ANY distro.

I didn't speak of DISTRIBUTION compability itself ... but n/m.

Depends what you consider as heavy load and how often your boxes are under heavy attack ...


BTW, the previous post shouldn't sound like a war post so I'm sorry if you felt upset or something!

I would have to agree that RH works fine as a server, if you don't have all the X BS, or if you go with the advanced server. One of the most secure distros (according to many industry watchdogs, not me) is Engarde Linux which, AFAIK, started as a stripped down copy of Redhat.

What's with the infighting between distros? Linux is Linux, a distro is just a bundling with additional software. Aren't we all fighting for the same cause?

then please stop mentioning stuff like: have fun securing RedHat yadayada.. and Debian is more stable.
I can also point out a great document about how to secure RedHat machines if I want to.

A compatibility issue with RH is totally out of the question since most software of any kind is suitable to install on RH machines.

The servers I'm talking about are corporate servers and they have an avarage of 95% cpu load.. and they get a lot of attacks a day yes..

I'm just geting sick about this This distro is better then that , try slackware because it's better. it's nonsense

Jdc is right about this though.. but I hope people understand why I reacted like this.

p.s. I also like Debian and slack so dont start about that

Yawwwwwn!

BTW, I am _NOT_ a Red Hat user.

I think what Redhat was going for is something that will be usable for a noob out of the box, and something that a guru will be able to use, having the knowledge and skill to disable the syrupy GUI during installation.

This makes a lot more sense than having the default be a bare bones CLI for a noob who doesn't have the knowledge to fire up the GUI...

Yeah, it seems like RH8 would make a great 'corporate workstation' starting point for users who know nothing about linux. There is still a long way to go, however. (Do they expect the average windows user to know what a sound-server and font-server are?, and do they expect the user to know how to install mp3 codecs, since none are installed by default?, and what about refresh rate? HA! thats a crock, most users would be stuck at a blinding 60hz for not knowing how to change res and RR) If they could find a comprehensive way to make a 'newb' documentation help-system, RH would go along way toward its goal of facilitation, rather than seeming like a watered down pretty version of past releases.

For those ppl in-between newb and expert, sure they can install additional packages, of course, but it kinda seems a little stripped down to me, compared with earlier versions of redhat. (in terms of default GUI, I mean)

Applause to RH for great work on making linux look semi-pretty. Im sure it works well as a server also, but most hardcore linux server admins are looking for a distro where they 'know exactly what is in there when they install it'. (i.e. debian, slack, lfs)

My first post was not meant to incite a distro-war. Ive seen too many of those, and frankly I believe its quite gay to fight over why one is better than the other.

Sure, ppl have different needs, but a kernel is a kernel is a kernel