Discussion Locked

Help with Setting up Linux Server

0 helpful
50 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Scenario:

I have a old, spare server that I want to play around with to learn Linux.

Stats:

Pentium III Duel 450 Mhz
512 MB RAM
5 9GB Hard Drives in RAID 5

I know, pretty old but it currently has MS Server 2003 on it and runs pretty well aside from taking forever to boot up. But once booted up, it actually runs pretty well.

I know nothing about Linux. So, I need something that will run well on old equipment and an easy install, GUI that is user friendly, and plenty of wizards.

I guess what I need is a Linux for Dummies but a server version.

I plan on running it at home next to my other 3 servers...domain controller running MS Server 2003, game server running Win XP (America's Army), and a web server running MS Server 2000.

Any ideas or suggestions?

50 replies

by jmgarvin

Fedora Core 5 -> Desktop with server stuff
SuSe 10 -> Desktop with server stuff

Gentoo -> Server (roll your own)
Debian -> Server (apt-get is your friend)

DSL -> boots off USB drive

by rkuhn040172

Not sure yet since I know very little about Linux.

What would be easiest to learn? Web server? File server (obviously)? I imagine an email server wouldn't be the place to start. FTP server?

You tell me. I'm open to anything, just want to learn.

by jmgarvin

I suggest using Fedora Core 5 with Fluxbox as the GUI. Or you can pick up Debian and really choose your packages.

If you want to learn about Linux, try installing Gentoo and highly customize your install.

All distros can do what you are asking to do...many come with the packages you need by default.

Ok so:
Web Server - Apache
File Server - Samba/NFS
email - qmail
FTP - vsftp

I'd also grab a package called webmin, it is a web based administrative tool that will help you configure and maintain your server.

by w2ktechman

I tried Fedora 4 and 5 (on newer systems) and had lots of problems. I moved to SUSE 9.3 and it was easy enough for me to learn how to set it up for much of my job.
I since transferred it to SUSE 10 and have had few issues as well. Although, the install for SUSE 10 did decide that my primary network was the wireless adapter (with no signal), funny, it was corrected easily enough.
My only other issues were installing the DVD player. It kept failing in the install, but everything else that I installed is working fine.

by eric.talbot

i did exactly the samething 4 weeks ago, i tried Suse and FC5 with default packages, == DON'T do that it will kill your machine.

Be very selective in the package you are installing. I mean don't try to install every package at once, if you do so, you will notice that the same machine can perform much better under linux than w2k3.

by navy moose

I have an old IBM P3 600 with 384Mb of RAM running Fedora Core 5 without a problem. It recognized my NIC, CD player, and video card without a problem.

I picked up "Linux Administration: A Beginner's Guide 4th Ed". This book gave me all the info I needed to start out. Told me how to partition the server, edit various conf files, apply a new kernel, and numerous other things. I also picked up a decent book which explains the various shells, editors (VI rules!), and explains the commands in plain English. "A Practical Guide to Linux commands, editors, and shell programming".

I can't speak for SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, or Slackware distributions. I know people who use them, I choose Fedora because my shop runs the various flavors of RH 4.

Good luck and have fun!

Navy Moose

by jaqui

use debian as the distro.

install apache, email server, ftp server, dns server, an sql server

Apache != webserver, it is an advance extranet server, that can be used for file server, application server, secure intranet server, ...

using bind [ the dns server ] as a secondary dns server isn't going to hurt anything.

do you need to have an active ftp server?
[ doesn't hurt to learn how to work with them even if you don't need one ]

email, while it may not be the simplest one, it is also the only one you don't have covered.

with file / application / network server use, you will need to use samba or windows client won't understand the network protocol, linux does not use the smb protocol by default like windows does.

editing to add:

Mandriva has gui based wizards for configuring all of the servers, Debian doesn't. using Debian means actually learning about the software, using Mandriva means learning to run a wizard and if something goes wrong at any time not having a clue how to fix it.

by rkuhn040172

As a desktop and hated it.

Nice and pretty, but lots of issues with some of the software I wanted to run.

Grant it, that may well have been my lack of knowledge of Linux but Mandriva didn't impress me much.

Thanks for the suggestions though. Debian might be more than I want to chew at the moment...maybe later though.

by hal 9000

Under your belt. It's the most robust and solid Nix available but it's certainly not the easiest to use.

I would start with something simple and as you've already tried Mandriva which has an excellent Software Library that you can access and didn't get on well with it try Fedora Core 5 is the current version. It has the slight advantage for beginners of using RPM's to make installing easier.

But while it's easier to use that doesn't mean that you are actually learning how to work things properly or why it works the way that it does and more importantly how to fix something when the thing doesn't work as expected.

The hardware really isn't old enough for any of the restricted Distro's I've got a really old Quad 200 MMX running the latest Debian which is fine though slightly slow to load.

While I haven't used any FC versions recently I have fond memories of the old Red Hat which is still running on several ISP's that I do work for and by current standards they are very old hardware something like Red Hat 3 or 4 if I remember correctly but it's a bit hard to tell as everything is CLI without a GUI as they don't want to waste processing power on useless add on.

I wouldn't bother with the RAID setup at first till you've had a decent time to play with the OS and get the idea of how it works although if it's picked up on the install what the Hell go with it.

Lets know if you need any help

Col

by too old for it

... or some such as a print server on a P-200MMX, 128 mb RAM, dinky little 2 gig HD.

Works. Never have seen a reason to upgrade that box.

by klam1994

I subscribe to Mandriva and while their package is very good in some ways. You don't learn much, so when things go wrong your screwed.
I started with Mandriva (mandrake then), and have tried Unbuntu, Debian, CentOS and Fedora plus a couple of others.
Of these I would advise giving Unbuntu a miss somewhat quirky,
Debian good but steep learning curve I found few user freindly configuration tools. It may be a good package once you have some experience. bleeding edge is Fedora as you might expect as it appears to be Red Hat's public development tree.
CentOS very stable, but as its based upon RH's ES public release, I have found it to be a little behind in its support for some hardware. While this may not be a problem for the older HW you wish to use it is something to be aware of.

I would be interested in your experience, though I am not sure how you could tell us.
Anyway best of luck.

by justin james

... don't install (or if you install them, don't use them unless you're actually working on it) GNOME, KDE, X, etc. They are complete system resource hogs and have nothing to do with the day-to-day operation of a server. If you can't get by in a UNIX without a GUI, you really should not be administering UNIX.

J.Ja

by rkuhn040172

But if you're telling me that I have to spend hours and hours and hours learning about command lines, no thanks. Maybe that's why so many people don't like Linux.

I agree with what you are saying ultimately, but come on, I just want to get my feet wet first, maybe a toe at a time, and not dive in completely, all at once.

I have some spare equipment, some but not a lot of spare time, and thought I'd branch out a little.

I know the GUI is a resource hog and a crutch, but a noob like me at Linux sure could use the help of a GUI just to get started.

by navy moose

At my shop, none of the Linux servers have GNOME or KBE installed, CLI is the only way to get things done. The people in the Linux team specifically recommended to me not to install any GUI because it will increase performance.

If you check the two books I mentioned, you will be guided step by step with plenty of screen shots so you know what the output should be.

I'm a Windows Admin, but I am learning Linux by the CLI to expand my knowledge base and make me more valulable to my employer.

The CLI is more powerful than the GUI. Learning Linux by using the CLI will make you more proficient with Windows at the command line.

Just my $0.02

Navy Moose

by justin james

If you just want to use Linux, go ahead, install the GUI. If you want to learn Linux, avoid it. It *is* a crutch, a crutch that rpevents you from learning a thing. I first installed BSD a few years ago, knowing only the basics of the UNIX command line, and a few of the more typical utilities like grep. It looks me less than a day to get a full blown server up & running, using nothing but command line and documentation. It was not until almost two years later that I even saw GNOME running on BSD (I have been an onagain, off again X user for about 10 years, but never for much more than juggling multiple shell windows). My current BSD server at home does not even have a video card in it.

UNIX the opposite of Windows; in Windows, the command line can only do a fraction of what the GUI does. You cannot even emergency boot Windows to a useful command line. In UNIX, the GUI configuration tools are stripped, simplified, and dumbed down versions of the CLI. Half of the time, they are just a thin veneer over the configuration files anyways.

I am certainly no CLI zealot; I would give up Windows' GUI only under the threat of death (possibly because their CLI is so bad). But if you actually want to *learn* UNIX (opposed to using it), and are afraid of the CLI, you need to reconsider your decision. Being afraid of UNIX's CLI is like being afraid of snakes. It is a reasonable fear (snakes can kill you, after all), but if you're afraid of snakes you also have to accept that you will never work in the lizard house at the zoo.

J.Ja

by pkr9

Forget about the CLI in the beginning. You'll feel like going back to DOS, but an extremely powerfull multiuser DOS.

For looking into Linux for the first time use the help and crutches available. After all you don't start learning how to drive on a 145HP Suzuki motorcycle, you start with something that your skills can handle. Use the GUI, install more than one and see which one suits you the best. Poke around in the system, be prepared to screw things up, use whatever help available online in newsgroups e.t.c

Enjoy, and don't be let off by purists. We all know that cars can work without powersteering, automatic gearboxes and powerassisted brakes, but nobody would deselect it for normal use.

by cactus pete

It's just a fun test box. You can take your time learning, and don't worry about screwing it up - reinstalling is always a good way to learn, too!

Seriously - and I'm not saying this as some "purist" as mentioned by another contributor - try to just use the command line. You get a better understanding of it when you have to think about what you're doing.

For the tough task of remembering shortcut keys for text editors, just keep a cheat sheet next to you. You'll learn faster than you think!

by ~omega~

Resource hog, ease of use, etc...

I don't mean to be flip, but if you want a box to run with a bunch of wizards and a GUI, you should be using W2K3. I really do understand your thinking, I thought the same thing when I started out. But Linux is a different way of thinking, it's not a different version of windows. The reality of Linux is that the server modules were designed to be administered from command line, and if you really want to learn how to create/administer a linux server, changing configurations around in a GUI is pointless.
It may be jumping in with two feet, in my opinion, the best way to learn Linux is by doing. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml
Start with a stage1 install. By the time you are done, there won't be anything you can't figure out how to do in Linux. (Especially because you'll have a lot of time to do reasearch in google by the time the bootstrap is done compiling.) And a word of caution, if your raid is software, you'll want to have a drive outside of the raid at least until you get to know what you are doing. EVMS is the software package for doing that, but it is not for the feint of heart, nor is it really configurable from a GUI (ncurses is not a GUI! It doesn't count.)
The thing I like most about gentoo, is that it forces you to figure out what you are doing. The benefit to that is that you really learn instead of just 'getting it to work'.
Find yourself a linux guru ;)

Brent

by rayjeff

that I saw. When I got to Books-A-Million, I always check out the Linux books. So, it's probably the quick reference book I'm confusing with the Linux Admin book, because they have that book there too. Actually, they have about 4 different Linux Admin books there.

by pkr9

We've thrown some arguments between us in other threads. My greatest respect for your attitude to learn something new. If I had a hat, I'd take it off.

Remember that when you work in Linux nothing is like when you did it in Windows. It's a hard time the first couple of weeks feeling as a complete novice. But I think you'll end like me suddenly you get the idea, and I'll never go back. When I am at work I often silently use quite bad language when Windows starts making wrong modifications on my behalf.

In Linux you are in complete control, but it is assumed that - at least as an administrator - you know what you are doing.

You'll discover that you came into a very helpful environment, search some newsgroups, and forget those people suggesting to RTFM (Read The Fucking Manual), there are rude people everywhere.

rgds
Peter

by rayjeff

If it's a matter of learning, why can't he use the GUI and then whenever he wants to try using the CLI, then just bring it up? The GUI would be like the "training wheels" for the CLI...right? Sounds reasonable, know?

by justin james

You are 100% right about that. But think about it like this... if you learned intergrals first, would have have bothered to learn to calculate the area under a function using a series? Probably not. Sure, there are things you can do with a series that you can't do with an integral, but the integral is so much easier, you will never learn how to use a series.

Systems administration (as well as progamming, heck, anything!) tends to be an 80/20 proposition. If you don't maximize your learning up front in the initial learning period, chances are, for most people, they will almost never go beyond what they know.

I have met way too many people who thought that they would ease themselves in Linux with a GUI, and learn CLI later, who are still basically Windows users on a different platform, to beleive that people can do this. Sure, there may be the occassional person who has the motivation to ease their way into it. But I just have not met this person, including myself.

I didn't truly learn UNIX (always had to use X, and know the basics of CLI for ages) until a Windows server died, I had 3 days to replace it, and I didn't have the cash to buy a Windows Server liscense (the liscensing was a long story, in a nutshell, the Windows liscense was a bit "grey" and I wanted to be fully legit). When someone has a contractual gun to your head, you learn, it's that simple.

Again, yes, it can be done like that. But most people will not. The GUI is friendly, it is comfortable. It's like if you lived at home and your parents fed you and bought you cars and paid the bills and bought you beer, would you bother finding a job?

J.Ja

by rkuhn040172

I keep running into Linux purists who think that the CLI is the only way to go.

But then again, those people exist in the Windows world too.

I just want the right tool for the job. In this case and maybe I'm wrong since I don't know a lot about Linux, it seems in the beginning the GUI is the right tool for me.

I'm sure that will change over time.

by jaqui

with the speed of change in linux being so high, the differences between gui and cli are increasing dramatically all the time.

I used both to learn, back when the gui was 75% functional wrappers to cli tools, now the gui tools are only 40% functional wrappers, making the gui much more like windows gui tools in look and feel, but not keeping the access to the full functionality.

Most linux distros release a new version on a 6 month schedule, some it is annual schedule. The real issue with gui on a server is the bloat in the gui isn't needed for a server at all.

RH v7 used on a webserver, tracking data transfer usage for 3D graphics community members websites, it averaged 18 gigs of data transfer a day, peaked at 35 gigs a day. this was for 10 websites. The cli only RH based server used an average of 5% of cpu time, and 7% of ram to do this.

the same sites on a windows box, with iis used 75% of cpu time and 80% of ram.

static pages on both, just being used to host files for downloading.

edited for typo

by ~omega~

Seriously... a lot of functionality is removed from the GUI... nobody ever bothered to put it in... Really, *Especially* when it comes to server modules, the GUI configuration tools are front ends to the configuration files, and most of the time, they don't even scratch the surface of the true functionality of their respective software.

Linux config files are written for the lay person. Almost all that I have seen have had very clear "this line does this", and half the time, you have to work in the command line to fix some configuration issue with X anyway. You aren't doing yourself any favors by not knowing how to configure X to run.

by pkr9

"and half the time, you have to work in the command line to fix some configuration issue with X anyway."

Strange, I never did that. 5 years ago I put in my Redhat CD and said 'go' and an hour later I was up and running - everything worked, updated until RH wanted to go corporate, no problems.

Then I switched to Suse 8 and I did the same - insert the CD and select whatever SW you want and don't want, and an hour later everything worked, although I had to backup all data first due to a change in filesystem. Bought a Suse 9.1 pro CD set, and upgraded with no effort at all, installed Mplayer and a set of codecs found on the net, and everything worked. Upgraded from 9.1 to 9.2 via the internet, same story, and finally upgraded to 10.0, same story.

What did I do wrong since I only ONCE had to use a command line, typing in characters from a 'how to' manual, and NEVER had to edit a configuration file or configure X ?

I don't want to play with fixing my PC, I just want to use it. And I don't want to use anything Mircosoft anymore.

by xstep

Distro watch is a good place to start. You can get an over view of different distro's. There are also Live CD's! Just pop it in and test it out.

Suse 10.1 would be a good choice and a easy install. Suse YAST is easy!

Server: Install 2 nic's and build a firewall/proxy gateway. Lot's of documentation on this.

Since you have a MS network with MS servers. It would be a great learning experiance to inter operate with Windows and Linux. Set up a Samba server (with LDAP). Try Open-Xchange you can also install outlook Oxtender. Run a web based application on Apache.

Visit http://freshmeat.net/ and http://sourceforge.net/

Try and learn as you go, Use the email user groups

Lot's of great desktop GUI's and web clients to manage your system. KDE control center is very nice!

by rayjeff

in Books-A-Million, but it's not the book I'm talking about. I don't know, I could be mistaken, but there's another book by O'Reilly that's a Linux quick reference book, but it's like...it's the size of a pamphlet and it has the same color as the "Linux in a Nutshell" book. Unless it's a trimmed down version of it?

by mjwx

Rickk for your first foray into Linux you should not install a GUI, but pick something simple to do. Build a Linux server (Takes under a hour) familiarise yourself with the CLI commands as these rarely change between distros. Without the GUI installed you will take in a great deal more about how to run linux than if you had the GUI (which looks far better than windows or mac) to distract you.

Anyway I suggest you pick something simple as your first assignment in Linux like setting up a simple web site in Apache. After that you can re-install (Like I said under an hour) Linux with the GUI and keep exploring.

As any Linux Admin will tell you, when you log in the first thing you do is open 8 terminal windows because that is where the work really gets done.

by steve w brookes

with almost identical hardware. I run a couple of servers at home with a few workstations and use it to play around with. I have a few Cisco switches and routers and setup small LAN's to test stuff out...nothing too serious. For a while I've wanted to have a go at Linux but have found there is so much conflicting information out there and so many distro's that getting sound advice is very difficult.

In the end I have downloaded the latest Fedora release, so I'll have a go at that and see what happens. I guess I am lucky in that I don't have to know about Linux enough to administer it, I just want to play and learn. In the end it would certainly be nice to have an alternative to the Windows environment.

Thanks to all the posters here, it is refreshing to get some good advice and has given me something to think about, in particular the CLI avenue.

by mckinnej

Hi,

You're going to a bazillion opinions on this, so take this piece of advice. There are too many distributions out there and too many fanboys for each one of them. They are going to make it hard for you to distinguish the good advice from the zealot opinions, so try this...make your own opinions.

Most distros are pretty easy to install these days. I've been testing a bunch lately and the majority install in under 45 minutes. Most have graphical installers, but a couple still have text or ncurses based installers. YMMV, but I don't really care as long as they work and I haven't seen one that didn't work in a while.

Grab copies of the big name distros such as Fedora, SuSe, Mandriva, and Ubuntu (or Kubuntu) and try them one by one. Stay away from Gentoo and Debian until you have more experience. They are not beginner-friendly.

The big push with most distros has been towards the desktop, so digging through that to find a good server can be a pain. Ubuntu/Kubuntu are good examples of this.

I'd start with Fedora. It has the desktop features, but hasn't hidden the server power. It is fairly generic and easy to configure. You can install both the Gnome and KDE desktops so that you can compare them. (I prefer Gnome as a user, but KDE as an admin.) Play with it a week and then wipe it out and try SuSe. Lather, rinse, repeat until you have been exposed to the variety that Linux has to offer, then install the distro that works best for you.

Here's one thing that all the fanboys will agree on regardless of the distribution, once you know the Penguin, your Windows box becomes just a game machine. :-)

by steve w brookes

This is sort of the plan attack I was going to use so it is nice to get that advice from someone who obviously knows Linux pretty well.

Who knows, I may very well become a convert to the Penguin.

by t.rohner

i loved Novell's Netware 3.12, no GUI to speak of, but still easy to work with. I thought the Norton Commander/Editor was a big improvement over the Dos "edlin". In Win3.0/3.1/3.11 i still used Norton to edit the Windows config files when no sysedit was available.(that happened, especially in networked installations)
With Novell, i had installations that nobody touched for 2 years or so, besides of using it as file and printserver.(I went there to make them Y2K-proof, otherwise no probs) I have seen NT installations having faster hardware, running much slower and having a "specialist" in-house almost on a weekly basis. At some point i heard about Linux and tried a early version of SUSE. I was a beginner, so my success was quite limited. I used a System/V unix running different cross-assemblers and compilers at my education site. I remembered backing up the "whole" 10 meg harddrive to 50 or so diskettes at that time.(ca. 1984)
I got my SUSE-box to run, but there was no desktop to speak of, so i didn't really know what to do with it. This changed dramatically when i first heard of SAMBA. I got me the latest SUSE and installed it with all the networking features. But i had to do quite some tweaking in the samba.conf to get it running how i wanted it. I started to edit this file with vi, you can call me a lame duck, but it really pissed me to go back to edlin-like editing. I don't need the comfort of a modern word processor, but going back to punch-cards wasn't my idea either. So now i use the KDE editor to configure, when everything runs smoothly i just don't start into graphic mode.
I have many SAMBA servers running at customers sites with no problems.
I wouldn't say that Windows have to be just game machines. Our customers use them to make money in production, there are many applications that only run on win.(i had to print a 4.6GB tiff file from a windows-based RIP, try it on Gimp....)
You can use linux and linux-apps for many desktop-related work today. Changes and improvements are happening pretty quickly here. Linux has already proofed it's competitiveness, when it comes to server apps or services. The configuration needs some knowledge, if you want to go beyond the standard settings from a given distro. It sure helps to know about them and the CLI.
But i sure wouldn't want to start scanning and cropping images without a mouse.(our first scanjet came with a windows286 runtime to do this in the (good?)old dos times)

by leon

I appologize if I missed this in the scan of the thread.

Rick, one of the hurdles to learning Linux is that
A) you can't use something until you set it up.
B) you can't set it up right until you know how it works
C) you can't know how it works until you use it
D) GOTO (A)

Setting up applications OFTEN involves the CLI and diving into config files.

A Live CD would bypass all of that by giving you a pre-built config. Sure, it isn't going to have all the bells and whistles you want, but it would let you play with an application (and having something to compare to) and get used to it before trying to install it on your own.

Better still, the same box you are using could run the LiveCD (it's just a boottable CD image) and then you could reboot to your Franken-server (the one you are building yourself) that runs from the HD.

Almost every distro now has a live CD, but the Godfather of them all is Knoppix.

Another option is to use the (now free) VMware - either the full version or the player - with VMWare images. If you go to the VMWare site you will see that people have built VMWare images based on various distros and built for specific purposes (desktop, email server, etc). Again, it's a great place to start your learning without having to go through the trial and error pains of setup.

by rkuhn040172

To use any virtual anything.

As I posted, it is only a dual processor 450 Mhz (maybe 500 Mhz can't remember), 5 disks in a RAID 5 array, and more importantly only has 512 MB of RAM.

It's actually fairly fast all things considered. It runs Window Server 2003 just fine after a long boot up though.

But I'd say with only 512 MB RAM, virtual OS's are probably out of the question.

by wdewey

With virtual machines you don't need to run this on your server. In fact, it would probably be better to run it on a different machine. I use VMWare a great deal for testing. I have it installed on a Win XP machine. I can start up the virtual machine and switch back and forth between XP and what ever I am running. I have ran SUSE, Fedora, Netware, XP, 2000, and 2003 server with VMWare. This gives you a machine to look up help resources and download things witout having to go to a second box (helpful if your PC's aren't close to each other).

Bill

by leon

at how effective a LiveCD can run on really old hardware.

If it were my machine, I'd download a copy of Knoppix and give it a shot. 512Mb of RAM is more than enough to run most Linux distros (I wouldn't run a business server with that spec, but for learning and testing it will be just fine.).

I have an old IBM desktop with 256Mb RAM that I use as a SAMBA server at home, and it clunks along just fine. It's not fast at starting up new programs, but as a file server it does its job.

And just to clarify - a LiveCD is not a virtual anything. The CD is a bootable OS that loads into RAM just like Windows boots from your HD. The Live CD uses your HD for swap space (assuming it can access your HD. Otherwise it just uses the RAM you have and keeps using the CD). So yes, there is a performance hit with loading the OS from CD instead of HD, but the reality is that Linux is very tight code so things load up fast after the initial boot.

And one more time - the benefit is that you are up and running with a KNOWN GOOD and WORKING configuration of Linux, so you can play with applications and get a sense of them before you try to install something and go through the headaches of configuration.

- Leon

by rkuhn040172

I know what a LiveCD is but you also mentioned using VMware.

VMware is out of the question. Not enough system resources.

I have used LiveCDs before and they are a bit better but still not as good as the real thing.

Thanks for the advice though.

by rkuhn040172

For suggesting running it on another PC. Leon seems to think running this on a old server is a good idea...not.

I have dual booted before with XP and Mandriva but I didn't too much care for Mandriva or the whole dual boot thing.

I think I'll probably go virtual for now and if all goes well then found some distro that will run OK on the old server.

by mjwx

the more knowledge you adsorb, people learn better from chalenges.

And ofcouse like I said in my previous post, installing linux takes under an hour (unless you install everything) but you shouldnt need the dev tools (unless you want to do development).

by zzzzing

Hi
I am a linux newbie. Over the last few days, I did a bit of reading and managed to get a linux server up and running with phpbb discussion forum running.

Here is what I did:
1. ubuntu 5.01 loaded with server. (you can email them for a free copy or you download from the net). This basically gave me a command prompt menu. I was too lost. So erased and started with..
2. ubuntu 5.01 base installation. This gave me a GUI with Gnome. With that I went to synaptic program manager (it is like a add program in Windows) and installed apache (webserver), php (scripting language) and MySql (database) and phpBB.
Managed to get everything running over a peiod of 4 days for a complete newbie.

Other options things to try:
1. ubuntu 6.10 (this come with a LAMP server standard)
2. ubuntu with XAMP (www.apachefriends.org). this could help cut down my time as the server is a package by itself.

Have fun

Mike

by json_white

There is a reason that Linux and Unix in general favors the command line.

Windows provides menus so people can absent-mindedly hunt and peck for what they want to do until they stumble on the right checkbox and go "Oh yeah! There it is!" It makes administration "easy". The big problem with this is that it lets people pose as Sys Admins because they can successfully perform tasks without really understanding the big picture. Therefore there is a great potential for everyhting to be setup wrong. With a commandline based system you really have to have some idea what you're doing.

Linux makes administration easy by a different approach. The command line interface and utilities are set up to be multi-directional. That means your output is formatted in a way that is convenient to be put back into the command line. Using careful command-line construction, you can perform massivly powerful actions by querying one command, parsing the results, and passing other options to another command. Now combine this with automated scripts and distribute them accross hundreds of boxen.

THAT is convenient and powerful (Provided you know what you're doing), much more so than a window to help you remember where you left your checkbox.

by venator

I'm running a P2 400 with 512Mb for a "play server" simply to learn more about Linux. I run Mepis, Suse, WinMe (I know!), and XP MCE on a wired/wireless/BT network playground. I've tried SME server (contribs.org), ClarkConnect (clarkconnect.com), Mepis SOHO server (mepis.org - need a subscription or beta 1 which was made public), and -after reading Jaqui's email exchange with the folks at ubuntu, decided to check it out myself- just installed ubuntu server (ubuntu.com) this weekend.
Please note these are all pretty well preconfigured server packages, either with gui or webmin/usermin style interfaces. My goal was to have a play server online that I can break without the rest of my family suffering very long for it. So, they run "out of the box" until I break it or change it. Anyway, I can gui when I want or cli when I have have time to really learn. Hope this helps.

by roger

I am currently using Fedora 4 on my server, and installed Fedora 5 on VM to test it. As a server, you do not need to install the GUI. RedHat's configuration routines make it much easier to set up and maintain a working system from the GUI than other distros, however there is one sticky point. After changing the configuration files from the command line the GUI configuration tools may not work correctly (though some do.) I configured my server using the GUI tools, got the system to function the way I wanted it to, then turned off the GUI. This requires a very simple edit of one file.
The file /etc/inittab has a line that reads like this:

id:5:initdefault:

Change the number 5 to any of the following to change run levels. 1 - single user (no GUI, only 1 login permitted, no networking) 2 - Multi user without networking 3 - Multi user with networking 5 - GUI.

If you turn off the GUI and boot the system the computer runs as a server (until you login) after you log in you may perform system maintenance, run applications, or whatever else you wish. If you want to start the GUI from the command prompt simply type startx and press enter. The GUI starts up, and you can do whatever you wish. When you log out of the GUI you will return to the command prompt.

I hope this answers the question of using the GUI for Linux. I almost always have the GUI running on a test system, and turn it off on a successfully configured server (after installing webmin.)

This discussion is closed to new replies.