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.
Here's a question regarding speed problems in X windows using KDE or Gnome. I've installed RedHat 8.0 onto a P2 266 w/64mb RAM. It shares a SCSI 4.5gb HDD with my old Windows 98 OS.
Why is Linux so slow? Win98 seems to cope fine with this whimpy configuration. Things like Mozilla take at least 10 secs. to open. 98 apps seem to load much quicker.
In general does Linux require a better spec. to run faster? I thought Linux was supposed to be better at running with less resources than WIndows but so far this doesn't seem to be the case.
I really like all the open source stuff with linux, hence my move from Microsoft; but if Linux can't cut the mustard with my current configuration I'll have to wait until I can afford a better machine.
You can have as many WM's installed as you have disk space to install them to, just follow the INSTALL instructions in the package you download.
More ram is always good, and might make it useable with GNOME/KDE, linux uses ram completely differently than windows so don't be worried if you see all you can throw in the box being used.
Originally posted by moodboy How would you uninstall a WM if I no longer wanted to use it?
That depends on how it was installed, for rpm's you use "rpm -e package-name.rpm", in slackware you can use the "pkgtool" utility and for source you issue the command "make uninstall" in the source directory.
Originally posted by moodboy Just out of curiosity, if KDE and GNOME are not used, does X-windows use some default WM of its own if none are present?
Yes, if you ever see a grey screen with a black X for the mouse pointer then you have the basic XFree86 WM running.
64 mb of ram is the absoute least you can run red hat 8.0 on. Even putting another 64 mb will speed things up alot, but first you might want to look at your swap. If you don't have _at_least_ 128 mb of swap, you could run into problems there.
I'm currently running RH 8.0 and SuSE 8.0 on a celeron 366 oc'd to 412 MHz (75 MHz front side bus). I have 320 meg of RAM and the system works fine. Oh, and I have Win98SE running on the same box and yes it does load apps faster - but it still sucks :-)
RH 7.3 was on prior and "seemed" to be a bit snappier than 8.0, even with 192 megs RAM. The speed of your harddrive is of course very important when it comes to how fast things load. There's a good thread here regarding hard drive perfomance and hdparm - check it out.
Also, the architecture for 8.0 is i686 and 7.3 is i386. The stock kernel for both defaulted to PIII optimization and I found that a kernel reconfigure was helpfull.
SuSE "seemed" to be the snappiest of them all. Unfortunately, SuSE is a little behind as far as up-to-date packages (8.0 at any rate). I'm going to update SuSE with the next release - SuSE 8.0 worked very well on the IBM - even KDE.
Lastly, I believe I read somewhere - maybe in this forum - that windows preloads the apps to some degree which makes them load faster but hogs resourses. I also believe that speed should be measured in how fast a program works once it loaded - not how fast it loads. I mean, do ya spend all day loading progs or working with progs. I know, it's annoying waiting for stuff, but you know what I mean.
Fluxbox is great. I use it with RH7.3 on an IBM 380XD laptop with a basic pentium233 and 92 megs RAM. Very easy on system resources, but KDE and Gnome apps with still take a bit of time to load. Although, to be honest, KDE (once it loaded) didn't work too badly on the laptop once I reconfig'd the kernel. I use AbiWoord and Gnumeric instead of openoffice on the IBM. I could sh*t, shower, and shave in the time it took for OO to load.
Well, that's my long-winded way of saying to speng some time tuning linux to your systen and it should work fine.
I guess coming from a Windows background, I'm used to having things one way. You have *this* utility to do *that* task. In Linux you've got this, that, those over there and the option to write one yourself for doing that task! With flexibility comes effort. Linux offers loads of flexibility but at the expense of a pretty big learning curve.