linux recommendations...

Kaak · March 6, 2003, 08:41

i'm installing mandrake 9 on a computer, and I was wondering if y'all could recommend me some good software, as i know nothing about linux...

thanks in advance...

Kaak · March 6, 2003, 09:23

well, the install wasn't too bad, this is my first official post from linux

March 6, 2003, 09:54

Install it all!

It'll take you months to learn about all the packages that come with Linux.
If you install ALL of Redhat, that's something like over a thousand packages.
Each package is a software product.

Ari Rahikkala · March 6, 2003, 11:17

Um... what do you want to do, that's the question. The programs I'm currently running (visibly) are xmms, Mozilla, a couple of Eterms and *****X - that is, a media player, a web browser, space to do random stuff in and start programs, and IRC. Nothing fancy. Generally, when you're using Linux, you don't have to download a lot of third-party software - what you need is already packaged and only needs to be installed with the package manager. Just find out how to get urpmi up and running (if it isn't already configured) before you start installing stuff - believe me, you do not want dependency hell.

Solver · March 6, 2003, 12:32

Provided that you don't get into trouble with dependencies, you're fine. A bit of Mozilla, OpenOffice and the nice terminals can do the stuff. But, if you have the space, I highly recommend you install most packages. Things like GIMP are also cool.

Flare · March 6, 2003, 13:08

While we are on this subject...
Which is better? Ret Hat Linux or Mandrake Linux ?
I am about to get a computer that will be my Linux machine, so I want to make my money count. Thanks!

Solver · March 6, 2003, 13:23

Flare, Linux is free, don't worry about money

.

Mandrake is built on Red Hat, and has been enhanced with tools to make configuration much simpler. However, most Red Hat packages will also run on Mandrake, so you should be able to run just about any Linux software.

If this is your first Linux experience, you do want Mandrake.

Urban Ranger · March 6, 2003, 22:40

Linux is free, but the distros aren't

Asher · March 6, 2003, 23:02

They aren't?
All the distros I know offer some variation of it for free for download.

Ted Striker · March 6, 2003, 23:23

If you need a workstation and a workstation only, save yourself some headaches and stick with Windows.

Kaak · March 7, 2003, 03:37

well, i have windows on this computer, but i built a computer for a chick and she gave me her old one (600MHz celeron). And i'm taking a class that involves unix, et al, so it would be nice to have a system to play with. I got mandrake 9.0 up and running on it, and i'm just starting to play with it!

What is dependancy hell??????

Asher · March 7, 2003, 03:41

You want to get Program A. Program A requires Program B 2.38 and Program C 2.13.

You have Program B 2.10 and don't have Program C.

Program A stomps its feet and tells you you're naughty for not having the correct version of B and don't have C at all, and won't do anything...

It gets far worse the longer you run the OS too.

Kaak · March 7, 2003, 04:01

ah, that sounds like a lot of fun

Fve Crathva · March 7, 2003, 04:05

Unless you use Debian, which does it all for you if you can install it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
They aren't?
All the distros I know offer some variation of it for free for download.

There are some that don't make it easy (ie buy the CD, or email us and we'll send you the source tarballs). RedHat and Mandrake aren't two of them.

SP

Kaak · March 7, 2003, 04:19

btw, is it possible to get the linux comp to see the shared folders on winXP comps on the same network?

Urban Ranger · March 7, 2003, 04:29

You need Samba, IIRC.

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 04:30

Sure, use a SAMBA client. But make sure, your kernel has all modules for the windows filesystem, at least "vfat" and "ntfs". The latter needs to be compiled with a special option checked, if you want write access too.

Want to like Linux? Prepare to compile your own kernels

.

Asher · March 7, 2003, 04:31

Quote:

The latter needs to be compiled with a special option checked, if you want write access too.

Which you are strongly warned against doing so, since with NTFS 5.1 (WinXP) in particular, it can cause massive data loss...

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
You want to get Program A. Program A requires Program B 2.38 and Program C 2.13.

You have Program B 2.10 and don't have Program C.

Program A stomps its feet and tells you you're naughty for not having the correct version of B and don't have C at all, and won't do anything...

It gets far worse the longer you run the OS too.

That sounds a bit like "You need the Internet Explorer version x.y or above to run this application"

. I need what, a web browser, to run a simple program?

Asher · March 7, 2003, 04:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That sounds a bit like "You need the Internet Explorer version x.y or above to run this application"

. I need what, a web browser, to run a simple program?

You do if that simple program uses the IE .DLLs, and for some reason requires version x.y of them...

I don't think that's a very common requirement, not nearly as common as RPM dependencies...

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 04:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Which you are strongly warned against doing so, since with NTFS 5.1 (WinXP) in particular, it can cause massive data loss...

This worked fine with WinNT, I didn't check it with XP yet. It was somehow clear that M$ would change the behavior of the file system simply to create incompatibilities. Suits nicely in the pattern of deeds of this company.

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I don't think that's a very common requirement, not nearly as common as RPM dependencies...

Well, I'm a refugee of the RPM dependency hell. Since Debian gave me shelter, I have almost forgotten, that it exists. There's almost no DEB dependency hell. The dependencies still exist, but are 99.9% resolved by the packet manager.

Asher · March 7, 2003, 04:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
This worked fine with WinNT, I didn't check it with XP yet. It was somehow clear that M$ would change the behavior of the file system simply to create incompatibilities. Suits nicely in the pattern of deeds of this company.

Yes, we all know Linux has never had any new filesystems or modifications to theirs.

Like, say, ext2/ext3/ReiserFS, that kind of thing...

I use apt-get. It's not perfect, but it's better than RPMs. I still run into lots of stupid problems with it. For some reason it keeps upgrading LILO and wants to force it on my drive, when GRUB is already there, then bails out of apt-get because of some weird error when I kept saying "no" to putting it on my drive...

Then there's the time it removed KDE 3.1 completely out of nowhere.

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 04:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Like, say, ext2/ext3/ReiserFS, that kind of thing...

ext2 and ext3 are nicely compatible. You are always able to mount an ext3 fs with ext2, or to convert ext2 to ext3 on the fly.

Who uses ReiserFS, deserves to be punished.

Asher · March 7, 2003, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
ext2 and ext3 are nicely compatible. You are always able to mount an ext3 fs with ext2, or to convert ext2 to ext3 on the fly.

And you can access NTFS4 and 5 from an NTFS 5.1 system, too, and convert to 5.1 on the fly.

Ari Rahikkala · March 7, 2003, 06:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
They aren't?
All the distros I know offer some variation of it for free for download.

Not quite true. Let's take Libranet as an example. They used to offer their 2.0 version for free download and 2.7 for paying customers. Now I don't know how outdated 2.0 actually was - the only example of software I found them to be using was XFree86 4.1. 4.1.0 was released in December 2000 and is, as such, definitely outdated (although Debian probably does not consider it outdated...). And now you can't officially download even 2.0. I don't think there's a free download of Xandros, either. And, of course, if you want official support, you have to pay for it.

Harovan · March 7, 2003, 07:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
And you can access NTFS4 and 5 from an NTFS 5.1 system, too, and convert to 5.1 on the fly.

That's not quite the same. Can you, say, from a NT4 system access a NTFS 5.1 partition? That would be the true equivalent of ext3 being mountable as ext2.

Asher · March 7, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That's not quite the same. Can you, say, from a NT4 system access a NTFS 5.1 partition?

Yes, provided you keep up to date on the free service packs.

Asher · March 7, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
Not quite true. Let's take Libranet as an example. They used to offer their 2.0 version for free download and 2.7 for paying customers.

I said "some variation of". Libranet 2.0 is outdated (but not by Debian standards), but all you gotta type is apt-get ugprade when you're done installing it...

Garth Vader · March 7, 2003, 16:12

Not meaning to go off topic into samba...

But how is XP at connecting to a samba drive on a linux box?

Or connecting to a linux box acting as a PDC?

I heard XP had problems with that. I have had few problems with everything up to 2000, but havent tried XP yet.

Anybody done that?