Linux- types, flavours, behaviours

That can make it far eqaier to find information out, and even hlp pick a distro to try.

The distro Chooser:

http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php

this is only a very limited list of distros, but the ones listed are well known and have a certain level of maturity.

The Linux != Windows Article:

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

a good read to help remove preconceptions, and help to understand the mindset of most Linux users.

Distro Watch

http://distrowatch.com/

A very comprehensive list of distributions, with links to each distro's site, and recent news from the distros.

The Linux Documentation Project

http://tldp.org/

A very complete archive of Linux Documentation, including the full set of How To guides. The limitation of it is that not everything is referencing current software, so there is a fair amount of outdated information on the site.

For help Installing

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-5982893.html

:p An article I wrote to help with installing linux. I did try to keep it non specific for disros, which isn't easy, as every distro is unique in the install.

And, naturally, Linux Questions

http://www.linuxquestions.org

a free community site of linux users focused on helping people learn linux.

It should be good. (and a lo of fun for you)
I'm not going to comment, as there are a lot more qualified here than me. So, I hope you don't mind if I lurk in the bushes and watch. (I'm harmless, really, please don't call the Police :0 )
:^0 -d

... is that we all have strong preferences in what we each want from a computer operating system. There are so many Linux distributions that it really can be all things for all people. Some of these preferences are philosophical, such as whether a Linux distribution should include software that is not open source. Sometimes disagreements of this nature get a bit heated. While people in the Linux community may enjoy debating the merits of one philosophy over another it must be confusing and discouraging to people investigating Linux for their own use.

The BSDs, on the other hand, are almost outside the scope of discussion. I think that most of us would agree that the BSD distributions provide the highest quality Unix experience available. I would also include Solaris in this camp. The thing about Solaris and the BSDs is that Unix was never easy to use. Solaris and the BSDs are still very difficult to administer when compared to most Linux distributions. Their user environment is very austere and primitive. There aren't very many applications available to use on these platforms; at least not compared to the number of applications that natively run on Linux. So Solaris and the BSDs are suited for environments where people are familiar with the old ways of doing things, which means doing things by hand in a terminal window using a text editor. There is little room to debate that Solaris, and maybe the BSDs, are very high performance compared to Linux. If you need a high performance server then Solaris is an excellent choice, and the BSDs might also qualify, but they are not going to have GUI system administration tools to the same degree as many Linux distributions.

My preferences for desktop use is to have a full featured graphical environment that basically emulates many features found in Windows. I like it when I want to do something new and the software is already installed and ready to use. I like it when I hear about some software that is not already installed and it has already been tested for my distribution and can easily be installed using a software package manager in five minutes or less. And I particularly like when the people who created the distribution that I use don't have the same type of attitude as Microsoft about how I may or may not use my computer.

I hate it when the only available version of a distribution is in active development. That invariably means that some things don't work as advertised even when you follow the instructions. There are only a few distributions like this. Most distributions have a stable version that has been thoroughly tested and is reliable.

So we Linux people are a diverse group. Fortunately the Linux distributions are equally diverse. And if by some unlikely chance you cannot find a distribution that you like you can always get the sources and build your own version of Linux.

Unfortunately a discussion about Linux distributions can devolve into a "My distro is better than yours" shouting match.

Having said all that I will vote for PC Linux OS for people who like the kinds of features that I listed above. There is no better distribution for configuring wireless network cards. It has all of the media playback codecs and applications that any teenager would want. The only real problem is that they are on the cusp of releasing a new version but the only version that is available to download is a release candidate. Hopefully this will change soon. The web site claims that they will have the release version available in a few days.

http://www.pclinuxos.org

There. I said it. :D

mentioned in the question / comments, I just didn't answer them :p

[b]What distro do you use and why? [/b]
I use Linux from Scratch, because I have total control over everything then.

[b]What do you see as the defining marks of a good distro?[/b]

This is the hardest question to answer, because it really depends on the needs of the person / company. Most companies would never concider using a distro they cannot buy support from the distro, for those times their own staff can't solve a problem.

I've been using linux for so long I can get fairly close to what I want with most distros, but that is knowledge gotten over time, can't be easily transferred, since each person wants something different and may not be willing to let something else gor for getting something else.
[ tradeoffs are a big sticky point for most people ]

[b]How about a bad one?
[/b]
This is easy, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu are bad distros, they killed security by disabling root account.
any distro with no system admin account is bad.

[b]. Where is a good place to start for end users who were raised on MS?[/b]

simple, single cd install, lots of options for software, familiar for MS users, PCLinuxOS.
the Mandriva Drakxtools frontend to Debian.
has almost all aero-glass ui enabled by default, very windows like kde configuration.
with better security than the ubuntu group.
The installcd is also a live cd, with a one click intall from the live os.

PCLinuxOS 1.0 will be released soon. I looked at the current release candidate, while the multmedia stuff means I won't use it, it's a near duplicate to what MS has available.

I like the SUSE 10. I finally installed Kubuntu, and am having troubles with parts of it. Although I do like the 3D fireworks screensaver, I cannot seem to get FF installed on it. With SUSE it was already there.
Actually, with Kubuntu, the Adept installer says that it is installed, but I cannot find it.
I think I may just blow this away and try Mandriva tomorrow after reading Jaqui's notes on it. I didn't look to hard at the root account, but I did wonder after installing, why I am on as root, and why it did not ask for a root PW.
now I know.

but this is something I put together several months ago and posted:

OK first off, this is NOT a definitive review of all the Linux systems. I have been looking at what is easy to install and use for the BASIC level END USER that is technically illiterate - you know the type that does not understand why you should not click on the 'Yes' button on every pop-up box they see.

To that end my evaluation criteria have been

1. Ease of install as compared against Windows XP.
2. Ease of post install use for general office activities.
3 Ease of post install use for basic Internet activities, no I have NOT included chat, teleconferencing, or Instant Messaging type stuff.
4. Reasonable security in an out of the box install.
5. Reasonable levels of backwards compatibility with applications and hardware.

NB This is not a performance comaprison with Windows or a review of system performance, I am simply looking for what some of my clients could use on a basis for them to install and use - they are challenged finding an ON button on many computers.

The system I have used is a Pentium 4, 3 gHz with 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive. This is a 64 bit board and CPU. All software has been loaded on this same machine.

I have not tried every system available due to accessibilty of software problems - downloading ISOs over 28.8 kbps with a 6 hour cut off is NOT an effective way to get software.

The best compatibility with Windows based software and games, for all systems, is obtained by downloading and installing WINE for applications and Cedega for games (this will also run older games from earlier OSs).

Results to date

Mandrake 10 - need tech knowledge to install - about on par with DOS 6 and Win 3.1 re installation skills. OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18 months older than the rest of the systems tried.

Free Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 5.10, Fedora Core 4, Fedora Core 5 - were all OK to install some problems with post installation administration functions, noted later. OK to use. Debian 3.1 I had installation problems with and also tried to install on a P 4 2.4 gHz 32 bit machine as I thought problems may be related to the 64 bit hardware, got a different set of installation problems. Nothing major just annoying - Note, had same sorts of troubles with Win XP on those machines. All had better out of the box security than Windows XP as they included basic firewalls in their packages. They also required establishment of user accounts and opened into user accounts when booted. All were backwards compatible with the older hardware and software that I had on hand.

Recommendations to clients who are going to use Linux and only Linux - install Fedora Core 5 or Ubuntu 5.1 and take a little time and trouble to learn the differences between them and the Windows you are used to. I also suggest that they get a tech to install WINE and XINE for them so that they can readily use their older Windows applications and play DVDs. Free Mandriva 2006 and Fedora Core 4 are not quite as good but acceptable. With all installations they recognised my Network Interface Card, video card, and modem, loading the correct drivers. All had to be told what my monitor was and FC 5, U 5.1, & FM 06 all had drivers for it, the rest used generic drivers that worked well.

All came with Open Office, two browsers and two mail clients - usually their own versions with Thunderbird and Firefox.

The only real complaints I have are outside the test criteria and relate to difficulties with dual boot systems. All recognised the Windows installation and set up the boot loader to handle that. However, in each case I could not use the GUI interface admin functions to reset the owner and group permissions of the Windows created partitions or folders to enable me to have full access within the Linux installations, They all enabled read and execute of FAT 32 partitions, with FC 5 and U 5.1 allowing read and execute of NTFS partitions as well. This is an issue for full sharing of files between the OSs.

Update 22 Feb 2007

Since then I've tried FC 6, Ubuntu 6.10, SuSe, Kubuntu, and SimplyMEPIS.

I now use SImplyMEPIS 6, I prefer the KDE desktop and found those that auto set up with Gnome (like Ubuntu) mad some issues when you tried to skim the Gnome out by unloading the Gnome packages after loading KDE. Also, I do a lot of file management and admin stuff, Ubuntu just doesn't cut it there for me.

I spent decades with MS, and find SimplyMEPIS the easiest to pick up from as regards the free Linux variants - Haven't tried Linspire as you have to pay for that down here.

BTW the only Linux code I know is CHMOD, which I had to learn when working with FC 4.

edited to correct typos and add

Tried PCLinux OS today, the Live install looked nice but couldn't install. Had an issue with my very new Nvidea card and 22 inch wide monitor.

One issue I did have with FC 6. My system now has one IDE hard drive with 2 partitions Mepis and Swap, and a SATA with two partitions - data and test. Test is where I install the new ones to try. When I installed FC6 it wanted to format all four partitions. When I told it to format test only, it did that and installed. Post installation I couldn't find any partitions except test and swap. I tried and couldn't find any way to mount the other two partitions within any of the GUI apps. A downer in my book, as it looked good otherwise. Would be good for a clean install situation.

Advice for someone who doesn't do a lot of playing around with their files, which I do. Ubuntu or its derivatives like Kubuntu or SimplyMEPIS are the best in my estimation for basic users.

I am looking to set up this box as a web server. I am also looking to replace the WIN98 with something like the Linux XP or similar product.

I ordered on Ebay Ubunto, Kubunto, Knoppix, Fedora 6 core, suse 10.2, and Linux XP. These should be on DVD. My plan is to test the all, but would like feedback on GNOME vs KDE and all that.

As a background, I was into PC's with the IBM XT and was a expert dos command line user. Then was slow to catch on to windows 3.1. Used WIN98 when it came out til they stopped supporting it. I now have WIN XP HOME on both my laptop and desktop.

I am looking to expand into a through knowledge of LINUX, but now only know the names of the ISO's.

The box is a 950 DURON w 384mb RAM. The motherboard is K7SEM. WIN98 is on a 40gig drive and I have a 60gig drive free for Linux. I also have a ZIP100 internal and a Card reader for SD, SM, SC, etc. Also a DVD ROM CDRW drive.

I've also ordered some books from Barnes and Nobles to study up on Linux.

Where do I start. I have received no materials in the mail yet and would like some intro to Linux to set me on the right path.

Thanks,

Mo Dale

I've used probably half a dozen Linux distributions extensively, another half dozen enough to have a pretty good understanding of them (enough to know why they aren't as useful to me as others, at least), and know a fair bit about another couple dozen without having used them much.

I've written a few articles here at TR that could be helpful for the Linux beginner:

[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6106234.html]Linux 101: Use Knoppix to resize partitions for dual-boot installs[/url]
[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6105410.html]Linux 101: Installing Debian GNU/Linux[/url]
[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6102898.html]Linux 101: Making manpages work for you[/url]
[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6104158.html]Linux 101: Efficient software management with the Advanced Package Tool in Debian[/url]

There's more where that came from, too -- several articles about data and network security, for instance -- at [url=http://sob.apotheon.org/?page_id=7][b]this page[/b][/url]. It isn't there today, but it's likely that there will be an article about using Subversion for personal document management listed on that page in the next few weeks as well.

I intend to get to work on some resources more related to FreeBSD as well, in the near future.

In my experience, RPM-based distributions vary wildly (at least, about as wildly as can be expected in the Linux world) from the expectations of most users of unixlike operating systems. If you want general Linux knowledge, RPM-based distributions are probably not the way to start, as RPM-based distributions not only vary quite a bit from DEB- and source-based distributions, but also from each other. If you just want to get away from Windows, though, and don't care about comprehensive understanding of Linux in general, that's not a reason to avoid RPM-based distributions.

(note: RPM and DEB are binary package formats -- RPMs were invented by Red Hat, and DEBs by the Debian project)

RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Novell SuSE provide the best support for proprietary software on Linux, such as Maya, with RHEL providing better support than Novell SuSE, because proprietary software vendors tend to develop for a specific platform rather than for portability. Fedora, the community-based spin-off of RHEL, is similarly well-supported by proprietary software vendors.

Gentoo, Slackware, and Linux From Scratch provide the best support you're likely to get for nonstandard software configurations -- LFS is the most customizable, Gentoo is the easiest to configure, and Slackware is somewhere between the two. All three of them make it easier to thoroughly break things than most other distributions, however, because they way they provide this configurability is through use of source code compilation, with compile-time configuration options, to put together the platform. Gentoo is notorious for its "KDE is broken this week" issues -- which are not as bad as some make them out to be, but can be frustrating. Slackware is quite stable, but you can screw it up pretty easily if you're not careful -- at least you'll know it's your fault if it breaks, though. LFS is not for the faint of heart: unless you want to really get your hands dirty with experimentation and learning about the ugly guts of Linux, use something else.

Knoppix is the biggest name in LiveCD distributions. MEPIS is more of a "professional" LiveCD. Ubuntu's LiveCD is mostly valuable as an introduction to Ubuntu. Those are pretty much the biggies for LiveCD distros -- there are of course other, more niche-oriented LiveCDs available, such as Zen Linux (really nice, lightweight, elegant desktop, but not nearly as good for hardware support as the others I've mentioned).

There are the Windows-replacement commercial distros, of course. These include distributions like Linspire and Xandros. I tend to recommend avoiding Linspire -- use Xandros instead if you must use one of these. Some of the software provided with these is proprietary, and to get the full version of one of these distributions you typically need to pay some money (a pittance compared to Windows licenses, however -- and compared to support costs for RHEL and Novell SuSE as well).

PCLinuxOS is sort of like a community version of the commercial distros Linspire and Xandros. It's a "user friendly" Windows replacement distribution, with a "user friendly" community. I have yet to meet a PCLinuxOS user (in the sense that he uses PCLinuxOS first and foremost) that doesn't come off like a Kool-Aid drinking cultist, however. Fully half the Linux users I've come across who are obsessively anti-Microsoft and sound utterly unreasonable about it (as opposed to those who are quite reasonable) are PCLinuxOS users as well -- and I don't think I've met a PCLinuxOS user who doesn't fit that description. I don't know why those personality traits are so constant for PCLinuxOS users, but they may be worth considering as factors in your decision.

Debian has long been my favorite Linux distribution. It's among the most stable, and among the most easily configurable without being a source-based distribution. It has more software in its standard, free archives (about 20,000 distinct packages) than any other operating system on the planet -- about seven times as many packages as in Fedora, for instance. It has the biggest community of any OS as far as I'm aware, some of the most competent Linux users, and some of the best software management tools (the Advanced Package Tool, Synaptic, aptitude, and so on). Whereas RPM-based distributions have a tendency to change the way they do common, standard things, so that it's typical for any two established RPM distributions to differ from each other in occasionally surprising ways, the vast number of Debian-based distributions (including Knoppix, MEPIS, Ubuntu Zen, and a slew of others that I haven't already mentioned) tend to stick to pretty much the same way of doing things so that skills you learn that would be distro-specific with RPM-based distributions are more widely applicable with DEB-based distributions.

Then . . . there's the BSD family of OSes.

NetBSD was once the most widely ported operating system around, but Debian has outdone it on that score.

OpenBSD is still the most secure OS in existence. It has shipped with a grand total of exactly one remotely exploitable vulnerability in default configuration ever. Ever. Just one. When you consider the hundreds of remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in default configurations of MS Windows [i]every year[/i], as compared with OpenBSD's one single vulnerability in the same fifteen-plus years, that should give you a pretty good idea of how secure it is. The OpenBSD project is also the source of a lot of security software projects, such as the OpenSSH remote access secure shell tool that is distributed with basically every Linux distribution and BSD OS in existence -- and is a better SSH implementation than any commercial implementation I've seen (and there aren't any other free implementations that even come close). The downsides to OpenBSD lie in hardware support, software support, and performance: it doesn't support anywhere near the hardware of NetBSD, FreeBSD, and most Linux distributions; it is somewhat limited in what software it supports, but the software it does support it supports exceedingly well; under high loads, it benchmarks notably more poorly than NetBSD, FreeBSD, and standard Linux-based OSes. For low-load purposes with fairly standard, productive uses, OpenBSD is quite useful. You just need to be aware of its limitations when choosing whether or not to use it -- an OpenBSD box (as OpenBSD currently exists) will never be much of a game machine.

FreeBSD performance is comparable to Linux distributions using a 2.6 kernel -- which is to say it's excellent. Hardware support is not quite as broad as Linux, but the stuff it supports is often easier to configure and use with FreeBSD than with Linux, in my experience of the last four months or so (sound configuration, for instance, is a no-brainer in both when everything goes smoothly, but when it's not quite as smooth it's a lot easier to fix in FreeBSD than in any Linux distro I've used). Whereas Debian has more software in its archives than any other OS, FreeBSD is a very close second, and I don't think third place is anywhere near Debian and FreeBSD for software availability. FreeBSD, however, does not support proprietary commercial software as well as any Linux distribution. In many cases, where there's a gap in software support between FreeBSD and Linux, the difference is made up by excellent support for Linux software compatibility in FreeBSD, using compatibility libraries much easier to use than the Wine compatibility libraries for MS Windows software. FreeBSD supports installation from both source (via the "ports tree") and binary packages with equal facility, as well as Debian does with packages and Gentoo with its own ports system.

Generally speaking, the best enterprise servers are, in order, FreeBSD, Debian, and RHEL. The best desktop for easy migration from MS Windows is probably Ubuntu, but it suffers some issues with stability and security as compared with Debian (then again, since Debian's about the best of any Linux distribution for those purposes, that could be said of any of them). Debian is likely the best general-purpose workhorse distro, at least as far as my tastes are concerned, with some of the lightest system administration demands.

As for documentation . . .

It's kind of a toss-up between FreeBSD and Debian, as far as which OS has the best documentation. Gentoo and Ubuntu are getting to be neck-and-neck for online forum support, but neither of them has anything as comprehensive as either the FreeBSD manual (freely available on the website and with the OS) or the Debian manpage system (also, freely available on the website and with the OS). Each has its advantages. FreeBSD also has extensive manpage support, but not quite as extensive as Debian's; Debian also has additional documentation, aside from the manpage system, but not quite up to the integrated, comprehensive standard of the FreeBSD manual. RHEL and Fedora have by far the most extensive documentation support via published books you can get in bookstores, though BSD-related books tend to be better organized, better written, and more complete.

Despite all these differences, at least 98% of the skills you learn with any of these free unices are transferrable to the others. Even OpenSolaris is probably about 95% compatible with Linux and BSD OSes for transferrable skills -- more so, if you run it with BSD or GNU toolsets.

Hopefully that answers some questions. I'm sure it raises a few more.

Thanks for the compliment, TiggerTwo, and thanks for a Linux-related thread outside of article discussion that isn't a flame or a troll for flames by a Windows fanboy.

If I don't smoke I'll kill people way to often.

I'll have a smoke going as they bury me :)
oh, hold it, I'm already dead, cremated and buried, I still haven't stopped smoking. :D

I've never installed the desk tops.... All though, I have installed webmin and use that to a certain extent. But, that is because I'm uncomfratable with my knowledge level with some of the servers I am modifying.

I use almost all command line, and write perl/shell scripts for most of my repetive tasks.

Dan

My doc told me to stop smoking, and stop sugar, AND caffeine
I told her that I would sooner die, and if that was going to happen, so be it!
However, I did make a few small changes with sugar mainly

But one of the women who shall remain nameless from Germany went ballistic. As she was having a [b]Bad Week[/b] I though this one might be better but I have a swag of different ones and I'm wondering how the Hugging Penguins will look. :D

But I'll keep my left eye handy because it reminds me to do what I'm told to by [b]SWMBO[/b] she dropped a 2.5 ton car on me and crushed my chest to 10.5 inches from side to side. Beside the broken ribs [b]It Hurt[/b] and she didn't come visit me in the Meat Works she left my staff to do that and bring up a NB and mobile phones so they could keep in touch with me and I could collect my E-Mail. When a woman complains you better watch out or you'll be in real trouble. :^0

Col ]:)

As far as I'm aware, Ubuntu (including Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu) is the only distribution that doesn't allow root privileges by default, with the possible exception of Linspire (just don't even go there -- Linspire will ultimately do nothing but frustrate you -- and I'm not sure how they're handling administrative access in Linspire these days). That's changed relatively easily, but it can be kind of annoying to manage that differentiation of your local install of Ubuntu as compared with the default (I've heard of a couple cases where the default behavior was restored by a software update, which sounds uncomfortably like Windows to me).

If you're going to use Ubuntu, you might as well stick with the default configuration. It's designed to make things dead easy for people who want to use the default config, and with almost no concern at all for people who want to change the configuration. This leads to people doing more customized configs having a more annoying time of it.

The way Ubuntu handles administrative access without direct root access is through the use of the [b]sudo[/b] command. The universal use of sudo creates some security concerns, but they're not [b]huge[/b] concerns as long as you maintain reasonable security in other respects. I find having to use the sudo command for all administrative tasks highly annoying, personally, but I might consider Ubuntu as a way to keep an end-user in check, depending on what kind of access I'm likely to have to the machine and how much I personally would be providing support.

That's really something you're going to have to decide for yourself, I guess. Generally speaking, I'd much rather use Debian (or, even better, FreeBSD). Configure it appropriately, and the end user need never know the difference. It could be configured so that the only way to access root privileges is to use the [b]su[/b] command (different from sudo) from a specific lower-level user account, so that the main unprivileged user account cannot access root privileges and you cannot sign in as root without first signing in as the intermediate account -- that's the way I've done it on certain occasions in the past when I didn't trust the end user with unrestrained root privileges and still wanted normal root access for myself.

My doctor wants me to stop smoking, just drink water, and go on the Atkins diet. I don't think so.

What the heck is "manpage" and "bsd" anyway?

I have gone all out and bought over two hundred dollars in books from Barnes & Nobles.com and will still buy more if nescessary!

Mo

I have been using CHANTIX a prescription medicine. It blocks the nicotine from reaching the receptor that create the dopamine that is the pleasure sensation to smoke.

The cravings aren't cravings but urges to smoke. I still have to fight of the need to light up that's linked to habits, but that's going well...

Mo

I don't see the need to quit though I do see a need to stop seeing Quit Commercials.

Many years ago when my Specialist found out that I worked with computers he recommended that I start smoking as it's much cheaper than seeing a shrink. :D

Col ]:)

everyone knows the root username. Wouldnt it be more secure if the username and PW needed to be cracked?

. . . not really. Since the /etc/passwd file has to be accessible to all user accounts, or they wouldn't be able to sign in, it's not difficult for someone to figure out which accounts are present and available to be cracked. The only thing that's typically encrypted and protected from casual reading is the password.

is the system set so that you can't log into root directly from either the gui or command line. So you need the account password and then the root password when you use su from the user account.

I even seen one installation on someone else's machine(and I can't remember which distribution it was) where they allowed you to disable the account 'root' if, and only if, you already had another account set up with root access. This was even better as hackers would go crazy trying to find root's password. The error message given was 'ID and password invalid' not 'Account disabled' so they had no idea it was disabled. I thought it was very cute.

I use a version of MEPIS which is a debian derivative OS. They have 3.3 and a Server version that are very stable. It installs as a "Live CD" version that loads fully if you find it runs OK on your computer. There are 3 other PKG CD's to load other programs not on the basic install that have been verified not to crash the base install.
It finds almost every device on a fairly new machine ( like windows only more stable) and its a 2.6 kernal.

I talked about MEPIS in an earlier post. It would be good to see how the "live CD" version boots up on both machines you are using (I would like to know how well it does). The good thing about Linux is you can change security to anything you like in most cases. Even make sandboxes (traps)for all the hackers to play around in while trying to break your security.
I think the CD load distros help with the " I only know how to load Windoze" users because it allows them to try different Linux versions, and most are brainless installs, finding most devices on fairly new machines. This is good if you have to load a user that doesn't know computers very well and only learns the applications they need to in order to complete their business.

That's when I started building my electric gitar... I'm hoping to finish it someday, and then I think I will learn to play it!!!

If you like paper (opposed to manpages) Unix and Linux Answers by Russel & Crawford (http://www.osborne.com) and Linux desk reference SE by Scott Hawkins (www.phptr.com) can get you started.
BTW A- welcome to CO and yes Wiki would qualify you to be a geek, but lke anything else in Wiki, we will have to verify it first!!! LOL
KH

Please, don't turn into a PCLinuxOS cultist.

Debian doesn't technically use a command line installer -- not by default, anyway. Its installer looks more like ncurses to me. I guess that's the difference between "command line" and "console based" coming through: it's not a fully fledged GUI install like that bloated monstrosity Fedora uses, the Anaconda installer, with all its clicky buttons and rounded edges, but it's certainly not a true CLI either. You don't need to know any commands to use the Debian installer -- and you don't need to use a mouse, either.

It's the best of both worlds.

The fact that some people are afraid of the unknown, and freak out when there aren't clicky buttons and 32b-color icons, is a real problem (for them), though.

as Linux will find and include XP on a list of OSs while XP won't always do this. I've had a P4 laptop and a P3 dual booted with XP and Linux for a few months. My preference is for SimplyMEPIS 6

The application doesn't get to the meat and potatoes like CLI does but we're talking about helping someone (user)who doesn't know Linux , correct?

Yes, but it's hard to get an Independent, Constitutionalist, or "others" to the masses.

That's an excellent point. I'm sure it's an excellent way to get acquainted with server configuration as a beginner.

I guess I forget, sometimes, that most people using Windows didn't get there via the DOS command line the way I did.

the show stopper for people just coming to linux when it comes to debian.
[ and slak, gentoo, lfs, or any of the bsd options ]
they are not the fancy mouse driven gui installers.

funny thing is, they are the distros which garner the most respect from the experienced linux users. :D

for people used to the gui install of ms, the console [ either cli or ncurses ] based install is a show stopper, they instantly assume it's to difficult to use.
The LFS livecd "sane build environment" would really screw them up.. default to orange on black console, until you pass it some configuration options, after reading the [F1] screen. Then you have to set timezone and charset to work with before it says, ready. It holds there until you hit enter, system clock not functioning until you do so, causing system time to be out of sync if you are delayed in hitting enter.

So I have downloaded a couple of Linices and want to start playing.

I have an AMD 2.08 GHz tower, 512MB DDR SDRAM and an nVidia GeForce 4MX with 64MB DDR shared video, 120 GB HDD (HP Pavillion a320n) that shipped with XP Home. I have recovery disks on standby in case something goes terribly wrong. This is my fiance's Mom's old computer- we got her a laptop for Christmas so I guess that it doesn't matter if I kill it.

I know that there is a recovery partition on HP that is theoretically protected but I have the recovery disks so I don't think I am in trouble if I blow away the recovery part.

So what is the best approach to cleaning the HDD to accept a new OS? Somehow I don't think that "format c:" will get me where I need to go to give this an honest try.

Suggestions?

Every bloody module I've wanted to use this thing for requires IPFW. I don't use that... I use pfctl. pfctl was ported from OpenBSD, which has one of the best track records for being secure... I know, it's not all in the firewall. But, I have much to much configured for pfctl now to switch over, and because pfctl allows me to throttle ssh/ftp connects. I slam brute force attacks right up their wazoo. I have other things built to parse the log, but it's nice you can stop the attacks right from the firewall and then do cleanup work with log parsing/perm firewalling automated scripts.

Dan

p.s. I'm sorry, I'm about 2 months late on this comment... I just do not have the experience to contribute to help someone that is looking at all kinds of distro's, and I didn't want to muddy the waters. Just been lurking.

In Windows, the asterisk (*) is a wild card used in searching, etc. I believe it serves the same function in Linux.

'foo' is a term used only in documentation. Actually typing it in as a command parameter probably will result in a error message.

People want to feel warm and fuzzy from the get-go. Personally, I'd like a nice interactive gui based partitioning tool (a'la partition magic), thought that is probably in all reality overkill, and would likely be more, rather than less confusing for a new user. I know Debian is working on a GUI installer (which unfortuantely craps out on my system). But where there are only a very few screens to get through. It isn't too difficult to create an easy handholding doc to get them through the initial install comfortably.

The webmin snort module is awful. It's easier to just deal with confs than it is to fight through that mess of a GUI.

it should be able to be restored from either way. The last time I had to do it on an HP system, I had wiped and re-partitioned the drive, then ran the restore.

But, I cannot say for sure on your model.

[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6106234.html][b]GUI partition tool[/b][/url]

[url=http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6105410.html][b]Debian installation guide[/b][/url]