what version of linux should i use ?

clive bream · 09-13-2001, 10:33 AM

I've got a netware 5 network and i want to have a linux server hold some applications and i would like all of my client computers to be able to access the linux server - what version of linux should i use ?

trusouthrnplaya · 09-13-2001, 10:58 AM

Well....It depends, If u are really familiar with any part of linux slackware and redhat is pretty good. If u r a beginner Mandrake is probably better. Mandrake has easier install; but u will just have to try them out and see which one u like. To me they all r capable of running as a linux server. Just depends how u set them up.

jharris · 09-13-2001, 03:46 PM

If you are new to Linux (and especially if you are new to Unix) then I'd agree with the above - go for something like Mandrake or Redhat. They'll help you a lot more than Slackware would, however you'll learn more faster on Slackware as you need to do just about everything yourself.

Incase you didn't already know there is a whole bunch of documentation on http://www.linuxdoc.org that will help you on your linux mission once you have chosen and installed your distro.

If you want to make your Linux box really transparent to your clients then you may want to look at http://www.compu-art.de/mars_nwe/ - its a Netware emulator which in some cases can be a fair chunk faster than Novell for file serving.

cheers

Jamie...

Steve_Taylor · 09-13-2001, 05:17 PM

if its for a server then use redhat other wise mandrake is darn good

yogotie · 09-13-2001, 09:48 PM

I have SuSE7.1 and I have used RedHat and Mandrake and found problems with them especially if you really want a server. I would recomend SuSE if you want a server but not if you are new to Linux. The cost for SuSE is definatly worth it and you might consider that you get some nice books with SuSE.

tomcf · 10-03-2001, 08:49 PM

I _may_ be biased but Debian is a damn good distro. Even the development "Unstable/Cid" version is more stable than most 'other' distros releases. (not just talking .0 releases but also .1, .2 etc...)
I've tried RedHat, and Mandrake (I love Mandrake) but so far debian has my vote mainly because of 'apt-get'.

I have yet 3 distros to try out (that seem worth while) ie: Suse, Slack, and LFS.

subnet_rx · 10-05-2001, 11:25 AM

if it's on the net, go for Red Hat. They will stay on top of security updates as a priority, and with 7.1, I updated my kernel with the up2date utility, with no problems. And the server is very scalable.

I would also have to recommend Suse, eventhough I don't agree with their licensing scheme. A trial download CD is just way below par. Red Hat makes plenty of money and is totally open source.

BrianG · 10-12-2001, 04:57 PM

Redhat 7.1 installs almost easier than windows.

trickykid · 10-13-2001, 11:05 PM

well, not familiar with linux, go with mandrake, know the basics i would go with redhat as its the leading linux server distro commercially. but yet again, all of them will work just fine.

my two cents.... is in...

oldpawn · 10-15-2001, 11:35 PM

Whatever you do, don't get SuSE!

I recently bought SuSE 7.0 thinking I'd try it even though it's a little old, then I'd upgrade if I liked it.

However, I called for my free support and they said GET LOST, we only support the latest version!! Basically they are guilty of breach of contract since the box clearly states I'm entitled to 60 days free support.

They obviously couldn't care less about their customers -- they feel it's OK to lie and the box and then not fulfill their promised obligation.

Think about it: would you buy the SuSE distribution knowing that even MICROSOFT has a better support policy?!?

bzin99@linuxfreak.org

oldpawn · 10-15-2001, 11:42 PM

SuSE has a very short-lived support policy so I would avoid them. They recently denied me my 60 days of support because I made the mistake of buying a slightly older version. I felt this was rather unfair since the box clearly promised me support and didn't state any requirement about using the current version.

oldpawn · 10-15-2001, 11:43 PM

Sorry I posted twice -- my mistake.

SlCKB0Y · 10-30-2001, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tomcf
I _may_ be biased but Debian is a damn good distro. Even the development "Unstable/Cid" version is more stable than most 'other' distros releases. (not just talking .0 releases but also .1, .2 etc...)
I've tried RedHat, and Mandrake (I love Mandrake) but so far debian has my vote mainly because of 'apt-get'. I have yet 3 distros to try out (that seem worth while) ie: Suse, Slack, and LFS.

Sorry, i cant agree with this at all, and i feel something needs to be said here...

Unstable/Sid is well, not really a distro so far as to say it will never be released officially. Secondly, Sid is quite often broken and a newbie will find great difficulty in configuring it. Stable or testing (woody) is a much better option for anybody really. I mean testing comes with xf86 4.1.0 and a recent kernel and compiler, what more do you want.

I think debian is a great distro, but i dont think anyone could seriously recommend the stable branch for an absolute newbie let alone recommending Sid.

tomcf · 10-30-2001, 07:08 PM

I wasn't recomending Cid. I was recomending Debian and pointing out that I run Cid and it works great. With the few problems I do get now and then either they get fixed right away or are easy for me to fix. I do agree with you though, Cid isn't for the beginner, neither though is Stable...

KevinJ · 10-31-2001, 04:41 PM

Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, Debian, Slackware and even Caldera are all excellent distributions. If you read a post by anyone that says they aren't, I suggest you stop reading their post because its obviously tainted by some bad past personal experience.

Redhat and Mandrake are very similar. Mandrake does a nice job of setting things up FOR you, but Redhat is the choice of commercial installations due to superior support.

SUSE is an excellent distro, nicely packaged and well organized. I have little experience with it however and found the differences from Redhat (my primary distro) to be confusing.

Caldera is the black sheep of the family as they don't totally agree with the GNU philosophy, but it has some strong points and I have colleagues that love it.

Debian and Slackware are NOT for beginners unless you are glutton for punishment and want to learn things "the hard way". I would say that holds true more for Debian than Slackware today. Slackware is much easier to setup than it used to be.

I started out with Slackware and loved it. The community around Slackware is tight and like a family. No other distribution comes close to them in this regard. They are very different from all other distros however and when I started supporting Redhat commercially, I needed to drop it so I could spend all of my time learning the in's and outs of Redhat.

Debian rox, but its a pain in the ass. Its for the GNU/Linux zealot if you ask me.

Go to Cheapbytes.com.... spend like $25 to get their "Starter Pack" or whatever its called and you can get all the major distros on disc and try them all out.

P.S. Stay away from the "fringe" distros (those not listed above) as you will have a tough time finding the help that all beginners invariably need.