Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Location: Student of University of Mumbai, Maharastra State, India
Distribution: Redhat Linux 9.0, Knoppix LIVE CD, Ubuntu Live CD, Kubuntu Live CD
I think, there are much better applications and pretty good support for a variety of hardware in Fedora than in Redhat 9. However, I would opt for KDE environment during installation of Fedora ...
Also, I am not sure, but Fedora has a built-in installation for Apache Server
My question in return is why would anyone install RHL9 today?
“Because I have the CDs”, “Because I am familiar with it”, “Because it’s a small installation” and “Because it runs the 2.4 kernel” are not good reasons. And those are typical reasons people give in this forum.
I have a copy of RHL9 on one system and it strikes me as archaic and slow every time I run it.
Fedora Core is the evolution of Redhat Linux. Another way to look at it is that Redhat Linux 9 is a 2.5 year old version of Fedora Core. You just need to ask yourself why you would want to run older software, when new versions of the packages are available. The current stable 2.6 kernel is faster than the 2.4 kernel (even on old hardware - I've used it on a 486SX25), and vastly more capable.
Some folks still run Windows95, just as some folks are installing Redhat 9, and claiming that it's because their hardware isn't good enough for the latest software. That doesn't make sense to me with the cost of hardware today. When we bought a 486 with 8MB of RAM and a 500MB disk for $4000 (in 1980's dollars), hardware costs drove the choice of software. Today, brand new PCs with 1.5GHz CPUs, 128MB RAM and 40GB disk can be had for $220. Move on; change is good.
Keep in mind that Redhat split their product offerings after RH9. They spun-off Fedora as a community organisation to make a test-bed/hobbyist distro that's released every 6 months and has the latest and newest technologies in it (eg. SeLInux, Xen). They sell RH Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for businesses and servers who want something that's certified, well tested, stable and is supported for 5 years. Also, since the software they used to make RHEL is open source they've put the source packages up on their FTP site. There are no multiple RHEL-rebuild distros that take the source packages and rebuild them, this is a way to effectively get RHEL without having to pay to get the updates. See www.centos.org for example.
So if you're looking for a desktop distro use Fedora, for a server use RHEL or Centos.
Quick reply to this question is perhaps a working example of a sense of conservatism that runs through institutions. I suspect RH9 is around because of a conservative-based corporate, institutional desire for stability at the price of any novelty and substantive progress. I mean: at the University of Virginia’s School of Architecture, upgrading the Mac Operating system occurred at a faster rate than Windows operating system. The trouble is; however, the best CAD and GIS applications run on Windows. So for this reason, one which I did not agree with, the Tech staff ran Windows NT service Pack what ever all the way until 2002—maybe later. I was called a “maverick” for installing NT’s service packs before they did. All of this seems to me a major reason that Red Hat 9 is still in play when clearly Fedora is the choice to go with “personally.” But if you were responsible for entire School within a Major University, does the lack of features concern you more than the stability of the system. ---- Perhaps I am off on this point. It is simply that—an idea that I experienced and was frustrated by during my residency in graduate level classes. I see one big weakness with my argument; and that is Redhat/Fedora is not the same as Windows NT/Windows 2000 relationship. The level of quality of Windows is pretty poor the more I work successfully with Apple X and bum and stumble around with Fedora Core 4. So the starting point of quality is quite different from a beginning point of view. So maybe its stability, stability, stability and a very conservative approach to novelty substantive progress . . . . . that offers an answer to the question of what is different between Fedora and Red Hat 9. . . . I do know, just a thought Tim TDW
You can still get exceptional stability with Fedora, using the same techique - stay a release behind. I'm currently running FC3 on 7 assorted machines (laptops and desktops). It's rock solid, and I updated nightly. I've being doing this since FC was split from RH as a community project, and I've never had a stability problem. FC4 will be a little rocky for a while, but by the time FC5 rolls out, FC4 will be a stable product. There's no reason to run 4 releases behind (what RH9 effectively is) in the name of stability. That would be like running Windows 98 now!
Last edited by macemoneta; 10-13-2005 at 11:33 PM.