General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2314826

    Linux gurus unite!


    by editor’s response ·

    The time has come, Linux gurus, to take advantage of our Linux discussion forum. We created this area for you to post your Linux questions, enter comments about the Linux e-newsletter, and offer suggestions for future tips.

    If you haven’t subscribed to our free Linux e-newsletter, you’re missing out on some great information. Subscribe today!

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3534611

      What area ?

      by vncoder ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      What area are you talking about?
      I can’t see anywhere that say “Linux Forum” anywhere except this post.

      • #3535114

        re: what area?

        by ppyo ·

        In reply to What area ?

        I guess our first task is to set up a suitable topic for discussion…
        What about the future of Linux? What lies ahead? Will MS keep its actual campaign of FUD? Will it increase? Decrease? World domination, at last? Linux the desktop choice, for once? Drop yer 2 cents…

      • #3535106


        by darren ·

        In reply to What area ?

        I suppose we are supposed to start our own threads. Too bad we are all busy on other linux mailing lists.

        • #3535930

          hmmm linux on TR…strange

          by vncoder ·

          In reply to Response

          I thought TR is more of a MS site…not Linux……

        • #3535392

          Ball Rolling

          by alvinquah ·

          In reply to hmmm linux on TR…strange

          Hi since there havnt been any thread started. I shall start the ball roling. First is the announcemnet of Mandrake 9.1 and Redhat 8.0. you can find reviews and snapshot in A lot of “Wow factor”!

        • #3460076

          SuSE is my choice

          by db2dba ·

          In reply to Ball Rolling

          I have used Red Hat for a few years, but stopped after they raised the price. I have used Mandrake and was very impressed. I experienced problems with the early Debian, and thus never really pursued it. My favourite is SuSE though, because of the price, the vast number packages it includes also because it is fairly customizable and finally because of the easy installation. The SuSE update is also quite impressive, if you can get a stable connection.

          I am running dns servers, dhcp servers, firewalls (iptables), samba pdcs and servers, squid and squidguard.

          My recent successes includes swapping out several W2k pdcs and putting in place Linux samba servers.

          Linux is the way to go, cheaper, functional and pretty good support from the community.

          I’ve also found that Linux people are much more willing to share their knowledge than Windows people.

        • #3458239


          by johnzoet ·

          In reply to SuSE is my choice

          My experiences are similar.
          Tried several versions of Red Hat, but got problems during installtion.
          Mandrake installs fine, but the control center has some scrolling issues when running on monitor will low resolution. In some cases I could not seeor get to buttons that fel off the screen.
          SuSE has been superb since day 1. The control center is extremely easy to use and the online update works like a charm.

          What I like most about linux is that it is so phenomenally stable. Since I installed it several years ago I can work all day long without having to worry about a “Blue Screen of Death”, or inexplicable system hangups.
          Linux saves me around $ 6,500 in licensing fees each and every year.

          Setting up a router and firewall with just 1 IP address is simple. You simply cannot do port forwarding with MS Proxy server with only 1 IP address. A Linux router happily co-exists with Linux and Windows boxes. Do NOT try to do that with MS Proxy server: expensive, difficult to manage, does little.
          For small companies MS products are way too expensive, difficult to manage and support costs a small fortune.
          That is one of the other things I like about Linux and Open Source: support is one email or new group away. If you find a problem it is mostly fixed the other day.
          Commercial products on Linux or Java is better as well. I was stunned about the speed of response for commercial Linux products. In most cases support is part of the product price.

        • #3534500

          SuSE ran Cold Fusion wonderfully

          by jordan.michaels ·

          In reply to Agree

          I tried for 3 weeks off and on to get Cold Fusion Server MX to run on a RedHat 7.3 system. No such luck even though Red Hat is a supported OS for Macromedia (the makers of Cold Fusion).

          Then one day I tried installing it on a SuSE 7.3 system and it ran beautifully the first time I tried it. I cannot even tell you how cool that was. After the 3 weeks with Red Hat you can only imagine how frustrated I was. Since that time I’ve been an avid user of SuSE. Their YAST2 tool is simply amazing and Ihaven’t found it’s equal in the Linux world.

          The only *bad* experiences I’ve had with SuSE is the support I get from them. I haven’t paid for support though so I probably have no room to complain. =P Their product is good enough to where you don’t need much support anyway.

          I haven’t tried Debian, but I hear nothing but good things about it. I will find the time to check it out one of these days I’m sure.

          Just my $0.02 on Linux versions… =)

        • #3459959

          SuSE ok, but what about Debian?

          by stephen kawamoto ·

          In reply to SuSE is my choice

          Upgrading to Linux is no sweat, but the cost effectiveness of migrating personnel from Windows to Linux may be mitigated by employees quitting due to limited adaptability to the upgrade.

          Can anyone provide a good computer book to sell personnel trained on Windows to the benefits of Linux i.e. migrating to Linux?

          I feel the best solution is to leave them with the choice: Linux training or being spoilted by Windows’ user-friendliness.

          The Linux trainees would also get a special training session on winning over their coworkers spoiled by Windows.

          The tip is basically dress the same as the Windows crowd, don’t put down Windows and praise Linux, and alwasy be helpful to Windows users trying to access the printer on the Samba server.

        • #3534360


          by sagax ·

          In reply to SuSE ok, but what about Debian?

          If you are migrating desktops to Linux, you simply must evaluate “Xandros” distro. It is Debian based and it is the first distro I have been able to install, run and update on 3 different PCs without resorting to the command line.

        • #3459781

          This forum is broken for Konqueror users

          by cls8 ·

          In reply to SuSE is my choice

          I tried to post a message in this forum with
          Konqueror (part of KDE 2.2.2) and got an error.
          Maybe there would be more messages here if we
          could post with a popular Linux Web browser.

        • #3459780

          It works for really short messages

          by cls8 ·

          In reply to This forum is broken for Konqueror users

          This is posted with Konqueror. The “your browser
          sent a badly formatted string” message was due
          to posting a longer message here.

          I invite “Linux gurus” to join me in the
          newsgroups linux.isp.debian, linux.debian.user,
          which don’t have this silly message length limit.

        • #3532436

          Not broken with KDE/Konqueror 3.1.1

          by masinick ·

          In reply to This forum is broken for Konqueror users

          When I saw your message that this forum is broken with
          Konqueror 2.2.2, I took notice. I do have Konqueror 2.2.2
          on at least one, possibly a couple, of my GN U/Linux
          systems (but I usually also have either Mozilla, Netscape,
          Opera, or all three browsers on those systems, so I have
          quite a few choices, plus I run many different versions of
          GNU/Linux software – I believe I’m running eight of them on
          my system right now). Anyway, with Konqueror 3.1.1,
          which I downloaded using Debian’s fantastic update
          packaging, I found and confirmed that Konquoror’s latest
          release works on this site – I’m using it now.

        • #3459778

          try Debian again

          by cls8 ·

          In reply to SuSE is my choice

          If it’s been a couple of years, give Debian another
          try. I’ve used lots of Linux distros over the years.
          SuSE is great if you need to slap a usable workstation
          on a bare PC in an hour, better than Red Hat.
          But if you’re gonna live with it foryears,
          in my experience Debian is the best maintained.
          best supported, and most maintainable Linux.
          Apt-get rocks. Try Knoppix for a no-commit demo.

          I’d give you a detailed review but they don’t
          take long messages here.


        • #3534359


          by sagax ·

          In reply to try Debian again

          If you are migrating desktops to Linux, you simply must evaluate “Xandros” distro. It is Debian based and it is the first distro I have been able to install, run and update on 3 different PCs without resorting to the command line.

        • #3533139

          Debian is indeed excellent!

          by masinick ·

          In reply to try Debian again

          I’m using Debian GNU/Linux software right now to respond to this forum. I’ve been using GNU/Linux software since 1995, beginning with Slackware. In late 2001, I got my first actual experience with Debian, after struggling with it for a while. I had actually managed to get a minimal version of Debian 2.1 working by pulling it out of a book with a CD, but when I picked up a copy of Libranet 1.9.1, the world of Debian software really opened up to me. A friend gave me that first copy. I wrote a positive review and sent it to Ziff Davis Media’s Extreme Tech Web site. Then Libranet gave me some test copies of 2.0, and I provided them with constructive feedback and another set of positive reviews. Since then, Libranet has produced version 2.7 and recently, version 2.8, and they continue to bring fully functional, stable, yet up to date software to the consumer who simply wants a system that works, with the flexibility to update software easily and readily as changes become available.
          Libranet gives you something that immediately works, and the Debian packaging provides something that is incredibly flexible. I highly recommend it!

        • #3607963

          dns, firewall &samba pdcs

          by mmira ·

          In reply to SuSE is my choice

          Hi, how are you?
          I am a bit new with Linux SUSE and within a month probably we are going to implement a samba and dns server and I was wondering if you have a cookbook for this two tasks. Also If you have anything for a firewall I would like to have cookbook for it.
          Anything you could guide me with is appreciated.

          Mario E Mira

        • #3525563

          Ball Rolling Further

          by garrathe ·

          In reply to Ball Rolling

          I’ve installed Red Hat 8 and love it! But what is happening about Mandrake and its “protected receivership” in France. Has it gone bust yet?

        • #3526727


          by vncoder ·

          In reply to Ball Rolling Further

          Downloaded and installed RH 9. Looks a bit better than RH 8 (menu wise) after 5mins of looking at it. Will look at it more later.

        • #3534147

          I wasn’t impressed with Red Hat 8

          by fucted70 ·

          In reply to Ball Rolling Further

          I wasnt impressed by RH8 So I dont think I will be switching to 9 any time soon. But Slackware 9 is beutiful. Its only down side is that lilo doesnt support ntfs partitons.

        • #3526717

          Red Hat 9

          by oz_ollie ·

          In reply to Ball Rolling

          Just ordered Red Hat 9 – if it is an improvement on Red Hat 8.0 then it will be WOW!.

          I have been using Linux (Red Hat 5.2-> and Mandrake 7->) for a number of years. I have looked at other distros like Caldera Open Linux, Knoppix (which is great for teaching introductions to Linux on most systems), Debian (stable but servers only realistically), etc and it is about time TR started supporting other than MS.

        • #3538016

          RH 9: Needs Polish

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Red Hat 9

          I checked out RH 9. I install gnucash as one of tha packages during initial install. And there was no icon to launch it. That was kinda disappointing. The Xconfig couldn’t get my system to do 1280×1024 either. Mandrakes latest did it very cleanly.
          In my dream world. I’d take RH partition tool and Installer layout, marged with Mandrake Config Tools, and More Polished System, Merged with Debian Package tool, and Cleaner System.

    • #3459851

      Linux = No Secrets!

      by jdieter2 ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      No, my Suse boxes don’t phone home unless I ask them to! And when I use php, mysql, apache for applications, I have every “bit” of source code. NO ONE can ever break my apps. And if the clients would just stick to Mozilla, I have the source to the browser too!
      Screw Microsoft and their secret code.
      XP Phone home
      Their “backdoors” and registrys and license agreements. They sent me a letter saying I had to “inventory” my pc’s and send them a list of all the software I had. I proudly told them too shove it!

      • #3522025

        Yup! Totally agree with you.

        by matt h ·

        In reply to Linux = No Secrets!

        I’ve been using SuSE since the 5.2 days, runnig then on a 486. My current Fileserver runs 7.3, and I’m soon upgrading the desktop to 8.1. My firewall rund IPCop with DansGuardian. We use Win2000 at work which is ok (if you like that sort of thing) but XP – now you’re talking. I detest XP with a vengance! Most sysadmins, it seems, do too. It’s slowly creeping in to our place, mainly on laptops. Here in the UK the “memory dump/send it to Microsoft” feature potentially breeches the Data Protection Act. Shame. Can I join you in telling them to shove it?

    • #3459753

      Linux on the Desktop

      by joseph.traylor ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      I have administered IBM’s Unix version AIX for 8 years for CAD applications in the automotive industry. When I came to this company we had DOS on the shop floor, Novell and Windows on the Accounting PC’s, AIX and TCPIP in Product Design, SGI IRIX for Analysis. So as technology has marched forward, our IT managers have desired to simplify, and streamline our numerous OS and networking platforms. M$ NT+, and Linux have shown the greatest commercially viable product to build an cost affectivelyscalable solution.

      All of my CAD applications are now running on Win2K, except for one, which is still in UNIX.

      In the last 2 years, I have deployed some of our Analysis applications on Linux. We are able to build application servers based onIntel hardware for about $10K compared to a hardware investment of $25- $35K for an SGI Octane computer. The cost of software licenses, and support on Linux is probably 25% of what we were spending for IRIX. And the performance initially was an improvement of 400% (i.e. An analysis cycle that previously took 40 hrs, was now taking 10 hrs.).

      • #3459751

        Linux on the Desktop (cont)

        by joseph.traylor ·

        In reply to Linux on the Desktop

        We have in that same period decided to retire Novell, and replace it with M$ Win2K Office and network. We evaluated Linux on the desktop at the time, but it was just emerging with suites like Star Office, the numerous GUI’s were too user unfriendly, and document interoperability was not smooth enough.

        Well our parent company is based in Germany. They are heavily invested in Novell and NT4 on the desktop, and have a hundreds of seats of UNIX based CAD seats for product design, and SGI UNIX for analysis. Two months ago, I was informed, that they are evaluating Linux on the desktop. Since then I have begun to explore the desktop again. There seem to be a number of commercial distributions, that are aimed at a M$ crossover strategy to attract large concerns to migrate to some flavor of Linux.

        Xandros (debian based) + Windows emulation for core office apps+ Enhanced Windows-like Desktop + functional office suite
        Suse Windows emulation for core office apps+ Enhanced Desktop + functional office suite + improved admin utilities
        Lindows (debian based) + functional office suite

        • #3459748

          Linux on the Desktop (cont)

          by joseph.traylor ·

          In reply to Linux on the Desktop (cont)

          For system administrators to convince management, that Linux is a viable alternative to M$ Office on the desktop, they have to demonstrate, how user friendly, the desktop is, how stable it is, and how easy it is to interchange documents with colleagues internally and customers as well. The down turn in the economy has given Linux an opportunity to spread like wildfire world wide outside of the US. Apparently Linux is being deployed in government agencies worldwide as well as in educational instutions. So, if you want Linux to get greater visibility in your community you can always suggest it to those in government and education. Just remember the tax dollars that you are saving are your own. And if Linux is in the schools, then you will begin winning the “hearts and minds” of the next generation.

          I would be interested to know, if anyone, is migrating to Linux on the desktop away from Windows Office in a large US industry, where M$ is so well entrenched.



          P.S. TechRepublic, you really have to do something about this length limit immediately, if
          you want to be taken seriously.

        • #3459736

          Linux Enterprise Desktop

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Linux on the Desktop (cont)

          I have been playing with that possiblity. Keep running into a few hangups.

          1) WE have an XP install the configures the machine exactly how we want it. Most of the install was done using point and click tools. Haven’t found linux tools that are quite as slick about it.

          2) Difficult to replace some applications (Autocad, Solidworks), especially when we must interface with suppliers and customers that use them.

          3) NAL – for application distribution is our best friend. It is sounding like Novell may in time support it under linux (fingers crossed).

        • #3459734

          Linux Desktop contd.

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Linux Enterprise Desktop

          4.) The fragmentation frightens people. Do we go with Debian or Red Hat? Gnome or KDE? etc…

          5.) I haven’t thus far been able to make the networking side of it work as nicely. Novell Logon script automagicaly creates drive letters that point to the users personal, program, and Global data directories. M$ AD let’s them browse for a printer, which then automagically installs the correct drivers….

          6.) Even some of our web app – based systems don’t play well with linux. example -We have this cool voicemail system, you can do everything from a web browser. Doesn’t work under linux. Needs activeX bits, I guess…

          7.) Hardware support can be a challenge. I have a wireless card in my laptop – 3com w/ XJack antenna. Can’t get it to workunder Linux. This is getting better thgough. Hopefully, with HP, IBM, etc… this will continue to improve.

        • #3539549


          by mike ·

          In reply to Linux Desktop contd.

          I have used Linux on the desktop for several years. It will be year(s) before it becomes a everyday occurance. There are way too many commercial and custom apps/tools written to work within M$ etc. so this will take time and big money to change. There are simalarities between the beta vs vhs here. Linux is better in alot of ways (not to mention costs) but getting past the invested installed base would take serious changes in directions.

          Then again, if it isn’t a challange I wouldn’t want itanyway!

          BTW: The company I work for forbids the use of Linux, anywhere in the company. I think they have been assumulated.


        • #3538375

          Have Linux Questions?

          by rivang ·

          In reply to Linux/Desktop

          One of the best online forums for Linux out there is…

      • #3459552

        Long messages

        by d.escasa ·

        In reply to Linux on the Desktop

        Maybe TR would like long messages to become articles?

        On a more serious tack, Linux (or, as Richard Stallman prefers, GNU/Linux) isn’t the only choice for OS. There’s the BSDs — I’m on FreeBSD myself. There might be some Linux-specific software that won’t run even under FreeBSD’s Linux emulation — e.g., Borland’s Kylix — but most commonly used software do.


        • #3459550

          More on FreeBSD

          by d.escasa ·

          In reply to Long messages

          Running Mozilla 1.0.2 + Linux Flash plugin (via a wrapper), Evolution 1.2.2, JVM 1.3.1, xmms, mplayer, several others that would take too long to list down. Pretty sure my pkg_info would result in a message too long error . Borland’s Kylix isn’t a show-stopper for me since I don’t do dev anymore. Don’t need CAD either. I would like to think that open source software can serve the needs of 80-90% of users.


        • #3537346

          Forgotten FreeBSD

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to More on FreeBSD

          FreeBSD does sorta get forgotten about. I haven’t looked at it for quite awhile. How is the installer on it nowdays? (I should probably just look, instead of ask, right?)

        • #3537145

          FreeBSD install

          by d.escasa ·

          In reply to Forgotten FreeBSD

          Yes, but I’ll tell you anyway ;-). Hasn’t changed much from the 3.0 install that I did five years ago, still the same green-screen interface. I actually prefer that, because it at least feels faster than Caldera’s GUI install.

        • #3526695

          FreeBSD install

          by d.escasa ·

          In reply to Forgotten FreeBSD

          BTW, the “green screen” does include bouncing-bar menus, so it’s not like you’re installing thru a TTY select-by-number interface. For that, look at OpenBSD 2.x — dunno what the 3.x install looks like altho I wouldn’t be surprised if it hasn’t changed much.


        • #3532433

          Yes, take a look

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Forgotten FreeBSD

          To me, the biggest problem with FreeBSD is configuring X,
          something most GNU/Linux prepackaged systems now do
          for you. If you know how to confugure X, or you don’t use
          X, then FreeBSD is actually quite easy to install. It’s also
          quite optimized, though building a really complete system
          can take a while, unless you have both a fast network and
          a fast system, capable of quickly downloading source
          code, then configuring, building, and installing it. The end
          result is hard to beat, but it can be daunting to get there;
          well worth it, though, especially if you want a real UNIX
          system with current software.

        • #3532425

          Qualifying real UNIX system

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Yes, take a look

          I suppose someone could take issue with my choice of
          words in my previous approach, so rather than be too
          careless in my choice of words, let me explain myself (and
          possibly amend my words in the process). To truly be a
          UNIX system, in the legal sense, you have to achieve
          official UNIX branding status. Several commercial
          systems, such as Compaq Tru64 UNIX, Digital UNIX (the
          predecessor to Tru64 UNIX), IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, and all
          of SCO’s UNIX offerings, qualify. There may be others, but
          these are a few of the main ones.

          BSD systems really have a long UNIX heritage. The
          earliest BSD systems came from the old AT&T Bell Labs
          Version 7 UNIX (older than UNIX System V). But the
          Regents of the University of California at Berkeley and
          AT&T had quite a squabble over licensing terms. They
          eventually settled their dispute, but in the meantime, BSD
          rewrote virtually all of their code to make sure it could not
          be taken away by AT&T or anyone else. They
          implemented the code commercially and publically in
          many forms, one of which is FreeBSD. So FreeBSD is not
          true UNIX code in a legal or actual sense, but it is
          functionally equivalent to true UNIX code, more so than
          Linux code, which is also similar to UNIX, but rewritten

          I can discuss this at greater length, but the 1930 length
          limitation makes it difficult to go into accurate detail.

        • #3532434

          Good success with FreeBSD

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Long messages

          I’ve had good success with FreeBSD 4.7/8, but to be very
          honest with you, it took some doing to get it right. I finally
          resorted to taking a laptop computer, which had recently
          lost a hard disk due to age and heavy use. Instead of
          putting Windows, or even GNU/Linux software on it, I
          chose instead to install FreeBSD. I had a few CD
          snapshots, but for whatever reason, I had problems getting
          started with them. I then decided to create a sinple floppy
          on a Linux system, then useit to bootstrap FreeBSD on
          the laptop. Voila! That’s what it took. Then I used
          XFree86 config. info. that I’d taken care to save so that I
          could be sure to get X working again. Then I downloaded
          stuff straight off the ‘net from the FreeBSD FTP site.
          Bingo! Success! FreeBSD is not as easy to initially
          install as most packaged Linux systems, but the end
          result is at least as useful.

        • #3356221

          What about NetBSD or OpenBSD?

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Good success with FreeBSD

          How do these to fit into the mix? Has anyone on here messed with them enough to know what differentiates them?

        • #3291561

          good OSes.

          by arheil ·

          In reply to What about NetBSD or OpenBSD?

          I was year under OpenBSD and 1.5 years under NetBSD. OpenBSD is good for secure boxes, and good for servers.
 is the answer for many
          questions.OpenBSD is bad desktop for non-english users,
          because headquarters have no solution for localization (1.5 years ago). OpenBSD can beat any *BSD if it’ll include UNICODE.

          NetBSD is a 2 big projects, OS and pkgsrc which ports applications to different OSes (all other OSes ports only for own OS). It’s the best in the world in pkgsrc effort and ultimate for supported platforms.Some troubles with nationalization on virtual consoles. I like it more than other *BSDs.

    • #3536788

      Revealing mixed network

      by cls8 ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Today I put in a LAN at a local nonprofit.

      Debian workstation/router/server, works fine,
      as expected.
      iMacs plug and play. Visiting laptop plugs in
      and sees Internet, no fuss.

      But there’s this Windows 98 box. I had to try
      four NICs before I found one that Win-98 could
      fully configure. All four NICs worked fine under
      Knoppix, in the same box! Setting a static IP
      doesn’t work, you need DHCP, but it fails to get
      the nameservers from DHCP, you have to type
      those in! And each little adjustment takes a
      five minute reboot cycle! What a mess.


      • #3537344

        Debian Workstation

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Revealing mixed network

        I’d sure love to know your secret to getting X to work under Debian. I have been looking at it recently (trying to anyway), on a machine with an i815 video adapter. Can’t for the life of me get X to run. Have used Readhat, and Mandrake on the same system, and they worked with basic installs, not tweaking. Debian, on the other hand refuses to play nice.

        • #3537155

          Let Knoppix create /etc/X11/XF86Config-4

          by cls8 ·

          In reply to Debian Workstation

          0. Grab /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 from your backup
          from when you had it working under Mandrake.

          1. Don’t install XFree86 3.x by mistake.
          Unless you have really old or obscure hardware
          you want 4.x. That is,
          apt-get install xserver-xfree86 xfonts-base
          apt-get install xserver-svga or whatever.

          2. Boot Knoppix. It will in my experience
          generate an adequate /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 file
          every time. Get a shell and
          cd /
          sudo tar cvf /dev/fd0u1440 etc/X11/XF86Config-4
          Boot Debian. Let the xserver-xfree86 install script
          do its thing. It will be usable about half the time.
          cd /
          tar xvf /dev/fd0u1440

          Restart X.

          I haven’t tried the i810 module yet. ati and nv
          work. I hear there is a new installer in Sid
          or Sarge that will fix this kind of problem,
          haven’t tried them.


        • #3538019

          That didn’t work either

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Let Knoppix create /etc/X11/XF86Config-4

          Well That didn’t work either. Knoppix is pretty impressive looking. Why doesn’t debian integrate the Xconfig code?

          That’d sure make my life easier. If it weren’t for that, I think I’d really like Debian.

        • #3533138

          I’ve had good success with Knippix, too

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Let Knoppix create /etc/X11/XF86Config-4

          I’ve had good success with Knoppix, LindowsOS, Libranet, and Xandros, all of them based on GNU/Linux system software that uses Debian packaging.

          LindowsOS is the most consumer oriented of them all. It’s still real Debian, and it works very well. Advantage: easy to set up. Disadvantage: default root access compromises security. More in the next message.

        • #3533135

          Xandros is a very stable, solid system

          by masinick ·

          In reply to I’ve had good success with Knippix, too

          Xandros is another Debian GNU/Linux system. Xandros seems to appeal most to those who are used to Windows and are looking for an alternative to Windows. Unlike Libranet, which offers a lot of choices and a lot of current software, Xandros is a bitconservative. Instead of giving you many choices by default, they pick their own software for each application that they think works best for the desktop user, especially the Windows business desktop user. They got for stability and simplicity ahead of choice. and they do it well. If that’s what you’re looking for, this software makes for a good system.

        • #2713601

          Linux will never replace Windows

          by jadal ·

          In reply to Xandros is a very stable, solid system

          Why do you post generic minimal substance reviews of Linux (Debian distros)? Xandros, according to the claims would run MS Office releases. Just simply NOT TRUE. THere are many pitfalls with any of the SAMBA and Win/Linux engines and interfaces to the Windows OS. They simply are not there yet as far as providing the stability and the ability to upgrade and patch, etc.

        • #3314936

          Windows will never replace linux

          by nocturnalsleep2001 ·

          In reply to Linux will never replace Windows

          While, newb’s might think linux will never replace windows. I am pretty sure in the new future with the growth of linux even M$ can not stop it. M$ has already made plenty of attempts to try and slow OpenSource and Linux down because it is the only competition to Windows but linux offers stability and open standards (which M$ is not good about) i.e.
          minimal posix compliance only having posix.1 is not really a compliant system just enough to keep the feds happy. Governments and companies often find that linux can be more of a benefit because of its cost and stability not to mention the fact that there are only like 30 – 40 known viruses for linux as compared to thousands of known viruses in windows not to mention that windows default install is basically an open door for people to invade as they please but yet people think M$ can be better in linux in that sense takes a person that knows more to attack a proper linux setup than it would to attack a windows box that they tried to setup to be secure too reason I say that is windows has nothing like SELinux which is created by the NSA and has security features that are at a very low level and haven’t seen anything close in windows I mean at my old school I pretty much owned bout 50 computers out of about 150 because windows was so easy to bypass its security
          and could have done more but almost felt sorry for my school cause winodws couldn’t stop it even with “the updates” no don’t get me wrong I am not saying windows sucks I think it is good for perhaps you average users that don’t know shit and
          have a hard enough time knowing what a c: is but if they were brought up on linux they might have a better understanding or at least not fear everything because microsoft thinks it has to use FUD to keep people from using other products really if MS was so confident that they had good product don’t think they would have to do a tactic like that cause I honestly hate microsoft for that reason it will not be civil they choose to make lies and hide the truth I mean I read a thing that Microsoft itself released saying that windows had a lower TCO and some idiot actually thought that would be a good reason to stay with windows is because MS said that it was cheaper to use windows than linux but remember why would windows say its competition is cheaper to maintain and “purchase”
          mean at the fact each copy of windows can cost $200 – $500 USD why would that be cheaper than a free os that you are only paying the IT staff which would be trained and know how to use it rather than paying for 1000 licenses for the entire company and then having to pay your entire IT staff todo the same stuff they would have to do in linux do see how that would make a lower TCO for MS cause I know linux is easier to automate if you know how to use programming and shell scripting cause mean I get a free C++ compiler in linux another thing that cost money in windows the fact is that windows rips you for almost all products they can except for the ones that they want to kill there competition like Media Player
          Internet Explorer ( both of those are only included cause they are trying to kill that competition IE took out netscape pretty much but netscape got smart and become part of the mozilla project and now is back in competition) because of linux but unlike IE mozilla is opensource so I can write my own version of mozilla if I felt like it something MS would never let you do without paying millions of dollars for the copyrights.

        • #3533136

          Libranet is my favorite Debian distro

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Let Knoppix create /etc/X11/XF86Config-4

          I like Libranet best of all Debian distros. It’s easy to install, very complete, ready to go, full of current software. Those are the key advantages. Some people may not like the text menu organization, lack of detailed documentation, or the abundance of software choices. But for those who like such things, as I do, this one is the best. It just works, it’s fast and efficient, full of software, and easy to get started.

    • #3536702

      Kudos and a Question —

      by nobby57 ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Glad to see a Linux forum, hope it takes off. I
      hope that this is a place for this question, and
      others like it:

      Have a HP Vectra VA PPro box w/160MB RAM,
      6GB Maxtor (which tests healthy in PowerMax)
      original BIOS (not upgradeable except for a
      minor functionality I don’t need) — have tried
      three times to install RH8 Personal/Home
      Office on clean empty drive with result that an
      apparently successful install will in each case
      not boot. First install: with HD translation inBIOS set to “Extended” and GRUB loader,
      would not boot; booting to floppy got circular
      rebooting, back to BIOS setup (“Press F2 for
      Setup”) repeatedly. Second install: same HD
      setting, LILO loader, same result, boot stops
      on single “L” which could indicate some kind
      of geometry mismatch; third install: changed
      HD setting to “Standard,” reformat, fresh
      installation, same single”L”, same behavior
      using boot disk. Will boot using boot disk if
      type “linux rescue” for a parameter. Once
      booted, functions quite well, recognizes
      peripherals, etc. Here is /etc/lilo.conf:


      read only

      Have tried changing “linear” to “lba32” with
      same results as before (ie nothing changed)
      — have tried deleting the “append” line and
      substituting “root=/dev/hda2” with no change
      in behavior. fstab has the HD geometry exactly
      as reported by BIOS and PowerMax. Anybody
      know what gives? — I am getting out of my
      depth. Thanks, Reid

      • #3537154

        #1 leave it be

        by cls8 ·

        In reply to Kudos and a Question —

        Making the hard drive bootable is usually not
        that important/worth the trouble. Older machines’
        BIOSes may be so broken that you will spend hours
        trying to line up what they do for LILO with
        what the kernel sees. It’s an arduous
        integrationstep the motherboard vendor has to
        do (under NDA) with Microsoft, but not for you.

        Instead, use a boot floppy until everything else
        is working, including your backup/recovery
        strategy. If your system boots from CDs,
        burn your boot floppy into an El Torito CD.
        Or make a LILO floppy with boot.b and map on
        the floppy, and kernel on the hard drive.

      • #3537151

        #2 force it

        by cls8 ·

        In reply to Kudos and a Question —

        Red Hat’s oversimplified install doesn’t know how to
        handle your problem. Force it.

        1. Let the BIOS do a “low level format” (zero fill,
        actually) so nobody gets confused by anybody’s
        leftover boot sector. Write down the
        “geometry” numbers the BIOS detects for the drive.
        Notice whether BIOS thinks you are lba32 or “normal”
        (that is, “CHS”), or “large”.

        2. When you boot Red Hat’s intall disk,
        stop at the boot prompt and read how to pass
        parameters to their boot kernel. Force their
        kernel to see your disk the same way your BIOS
        does. That’s the usual problem: BIOS sees one
        thing, but kernel sees something bigger and better
        and wants to use it all. You probably have to
        type something at the boot prompt like
        linux ide=255,16,12345
        instead of just hitting enter.

        3. Before partitioning, get a shell and go
        cat /proc/ide/ide0/hda/geometry
        and it should match.

        4. Make the first partition 10 MB.
        Mount it as /boot. Don’t let Red Hat put
        one giant partition on the drive. /boot is
        all BIOS needs to be able to see.


      • #3537148

        #3 Use syslinux, not lilo nor GRUB.

        by cls8 ·

        In reply to Kudos and a Question —

        Forget Red Hat’s “make it bootable” which obviously
        doesn’t work with old BIOSes.

        Partition your drive with whatever tool you have.
        A Windoze-98 rescue disk with FDISK will work.
        Knoppix will probably work. Table as follows:

        1. 10 MB not to be used by Linux, at the beginning
        of the drive. Give it the FAT-16 or FAT-32
        fs type.
        2. 100 MB root.
        3. 250 MB swap.
        4. The rest, mount as /usr.

        Install RH, get everything working, booting from
        CD or floppy. (While /var and /homeand /opt are still
        small, move them to /usr and point to them with
        symlinks from root. Why doesn’t Red Hat do that for
        you? Do that in single user mode, of course.)

        Get H. Peter Anvin’s excellent “syslinux” program.
        Put a FAT file system onpartition 1,
        copy a kernel file there, and install syslinux
        according to the instructions.

        BIOSes know how to boot DOS. There is no shame
        in letting them do that.


      • #3526946

        Same post from LinuxNewbie?

        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to Kudos and a Question —

        If it is, go to and look at the post there.

        While I have never used syslinux to boot up, i’ve always used lilo or grub. The problem here is not your boot loader, it is the drive geometry.

        The poster at linuxnewbie hit the nailon the head. Follow his advice, he gave you a suse link, but it will work for red hat.

        Also, I know the poster here meant well. But his partition sizes are way off.

        in Gui mode
        100 megs /boot
        1636 / (txt mode can be 612)
        1024-1636 /usr (i use 700 in txt mode)
        320 /swap (amt of ram * 2 min, you will need more if you plan on upgrading, so I would go with with either 512 or a gig of swap)

        I personally always keep home and var on sep parts
        612-1024 /var
        100-1024 /home (or if in gui, fill up home)

        Alot of it will depend on what you are planning on installing. For everything, I beleive you need an insane amount for / like 2 gigs.

        These are just personal numbers that I use. Consult the install doc for RH’s reccomendations.

        • #3534196

          Slight correction….

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Same post from LinuxNewbie?

          /boot can be 10 megs if you want to guarantee that your bios can acces it.

          Bios has a limitiation that it can not access anything above cylinder 1024. Keeping the /boot point at 10 megs will gurantee that your bios can access it.

          I stand corrected….

    • #3537516


      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      LINUX – Come back after 20 years user testing by the world and preech to us then.

      • #3537411

        Did Unix/Linux ever go away?

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Preech

        I’ve been working in the IT industry for far too long as when I started there where no PC’s only Mainframes with dumb workstations and these all ran Unix.

        Now I work for a bank and all their gateway boxes are running Linux with MS stuff deper into the network or “Forest” as MS like to call it. Everywhere that I’ve ever worked theres always been at least one Linux/Unix box in the place doing the things that the MS stuff couldn’t do as well and they are getting more prodomoniate nowdays as we are using more and more of the things.

        Lets be real here for a moment Windows was only a development of Unix as used by Xerox in the Lidia project and honestly even to this day we have not as yet reached the level of sofiscation that Xerox had way back when they decided that there would never be a PC market and decided to dump the whole project but not before inviting all the outside developers in to have a look see {read that as Stev Jobs and Bill Gates}.

        This is where the idea of a GUI interface came from and although I never saw the Xerox Lidia items I have read about their specs and they where the greatest leap forward in Unix coding that has ever occurred. We have been playing catchup ever since.

      • #3534194

        Where have you been?

        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to Preech

        Unix has been around alot longer then windows has.
        And is more stable, and has had more testing then windows can ever hope to have.

        You are only looking at *nix as a desktop operating system with a gui like winbloze.

        All because M$ dominates the desktop market, does not make it better. Don’t get me wrong, I love 2K. In fact it is my OS of choice for building out networks.

        But there is very little that Windows can do that Linux can’t.

        The only reason I don’t put Linux on every users desktop is for the headaches that will ensue from changing what the end users know and are comfortable with.

        But if the company I worked for was Pure IT, then you bet your ass that *nix would be on every desktop.

        There is a reason why *nix powers the net.

        • #3522029


          by ___._ ·

          In reply to Where have you been?

          Unix has been around alot longer then windows has.

          Discussion: Linux gurus unite!


        • #3520079

          I have to put in my 2 cents worth here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Ok…

          Recently M$ bought Hot Mail and imediatly tried to transfer to Y2k instead ot the Unix that Hot Mail was then running. And Guess what the M$ product couldn’t drive teh network and everything crashed down around M$ ears they are now back to Unix and no doubt busy writing code so they can mirgrate the Hot Mail system over to a M$ product some time in the future. Does this tell you anything?

        • #3520065

          What do you think linux is?

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Ok…

          Linux’s roots are steeped in the world of unix.
          You just can’t download Berkeley’s UNIX for the intel platform back then. And the only os that was Unix like was an OS called Minix.

          Linus found that Minix, while unix like, suffered the limitiations of MS-DOS. So he set out to rewrite the kernel. One that did not suffer this limitiation, and one that would still remain under the GNU license.

          Around that time there were others porting unix over to the intel platform. Like the Jolitz’s and BSD in 1991.

          So if you are saying that linux is not unix, then that is like saying an orange was never part of a tree.

          All because your whole world has revolved around windows does not make your inferences on the world of *nix valid. (notice the use of *nix ie unix, linux)

          In short, linux *is* a unix based OS. It’s origins traces back to 1991. Unix has been around since 69′.

          So your statement “Discussion: Linux gurus unite!

          ? ”

          holds no water here.

        • #3520564


          by ___._ ·

          In reply to What do you think linux is?

          Fundamentally cars are all the same, but you don’t drive a * model car

          PC’s are fundamentally all the same, but you don’t run a * type PC (what would DELL, IBM, … say about that?)

          So why them is *nix valid?

          Windows ****, so by your argument any version of windows I choose can be used in context. This stands up to any version now or in the future.

        • #3520559

          * gurus unite!

          by ___._ ·

          In reply to What do you think linux is?

          * gurus unite!

        • #3520478

          Just continue on in your

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to * gurus unite!

          Ingorance and believe that Microsoft makes the only REAL OS. While the rest of use who actually use the power PC’s live and love Unix/Linux. But don’t come complaining to us when Microsoft get their own way and make everyone swithch to MS product and the web no longer works.

        • #3519503

          Ingorance is spelled Ignorance!

          by ___._ ·

          In reply to Just continue on in your

          Microsoft makes the only REAL OS??? Don’t see that point anywhere????
          That will be why I run Unix, Netware, MS and Mac then. As I’m so ignorant. Each one has it’s own strength, when used correctly.

          Ignorance – you no nothing about me. You have just further strengthened my case for the amount of “single minded” people in the world of computing….

          Define the term Power PC?

          You will find it?s a hardware spec?.

          Oh and Ingorance is spelled Ignorance!

        • #3519476

          OK have a field day here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Just continue on in your

          Try having a look on this site and let us know what you agree with.

          It’s an open site so you don’t need to be registered as an MS Partner.

        • #3519471

          Also why do all the OS’s that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Just continue on in your

          You mention still come nowhere naer the Xerox Lidia that was designed, built and tested by Xerox before they decided they was no future in the PC industry.

          However they did show all their possible competition just what they had conceived {read that as Steve Jobs & Bill Gates} and at present we are still only using a somewhat limited copy of that OS. As at present nobody has even come close to what that system could do.

        • #3180928

          Why reply?

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to Just continue on in your

          Pretty quick decided Spuddy wasn’t contributing much in the way of Linux guru knowledge; not even particularly interesting trolling or flame bait.

        • #3519419

          So what are you saying

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to * gurus unite!

          I have been trying to decipher that from your first post.

          You get offended because people don’t know you, so you spout off the OS’s you use. Well that’s all fine and dandy, but there are bigger and badder fish out there.

          I choose to let my actions speak for themself. And based on yours, you either have not been in IT for long or have a very limited view. Or you just can’t get your ideas across.

          So if you are saying, * gurus unite= all gurus unite. Are you calling yourself a all around guru. I don’t even have the balls to do that.
          (I have a disdain for netware and macs [except OS X])

        • #3521249


          by ___._ ·

          In reply to So what are you saying

          The forum is named Linux gurus unite! Yet people all over the place are talking about Unix. Unix and Linux are different – same flavour but different. So when people start spouting on about Unix, it really does not fit.

          You dont see this in any other forum…

          I was told that as they are similar then it’s *nix gurus unite! I disagree.

          Hence the **** Windows remark

          Hence the * gurus unite!

          Was just a point…not that interesting really

      • #3180909

        Come Ye, come ye, to the preeching hall!

        by mgordon ·

        In reply to Preech

        Preech is to preach what leech is to leach. (analyze THAT!)

        If we are saying that only people with 20 years experience should be preeching then I and many others here qualify.

        “Linux” is used to mean many different things ranging from the Kernel itself to the entire contents of a distribution, all 600 utilities and applications.

        Your dispute seems to be that some people equate Linux with Unix all the time. Others do so depending upon the context, which includes the lawyers of SCO which sometimes want Linux to be a derivative of Unix, and at other times, do not wish it to be so.

        Linux is functionally similar to the AT&T Unix I remember using in the ’80s, which itself was similar to Solaris (when running in AT&T work-alike mode; it could also function as BSD).

        Therefore, when discussing Linux from a functional point of view, they are enough alike that the difference between a current release of Linux and a current Unix is probably less than a current Unix with a previous Unix.

        Free BSD is, of course, similar to the BSD fork of Unix.

        Differences in code base are not generally known; so these comparisons are more or less always functional comparisons.

        It speaks to an experienced Unix administrator being able to work a Linux machine, and vice versa, with very little difficulty.

        This equivalence simply does not exist between Unix/Linux and MS Windows.

        A cultural difference is that Linux applications, to a large extent, keep their configurations either in /etc or in text files in the user space. This has profound implications for disaster recovery and application portability. Back in the days of MS-DOS, you could sometimes copy an entire application just by copying its installation directory to another machine or location — its configuration was kept in “ini” files in the same folder. Later, those “ini” files moved to c:\windows\ or c:\windows\system32 and became much more integrated with Windows, and consequently harder to back up and restore (frequently impossible actually). Now the “ini” files are much less used and the registry is used for everything and moving applications, restoring them from backup is really a non-starter in Windows but it is pretty easy in Linux.

    • #3525941

      Windoze User Replies

      by mshatswell ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      I am an admin of WinNT/9X/2k/XP systems and I love Samba!In my schooling I learned Samba and used an Acer laptop to connect more than 20 other systems to my laptop(which was setup as a server!)and I could not tell I wasn’t connecting to another Windoze box.The ease of use was spectactular , and the learning curve was marvelous!

    • #3525102

      Why now the time? Why this the place?

      by ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Editor – I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but why now and not, say, two years ago? And why TechRepublic, when linux has been going for years using E-mail and usenet? What do you have to offer that adds value to all of the existing Linux resourcesout there?

      I’m sorry – I just don’t see the value in yet another forum.

      • #3180930

        Yoda says, there is no why, there is only DO.

        by mgordon ·

        In reply to Why now the time? Why this the place?

        Who knows what lurks deep within the minds of debate starting writers? Who would have thought that anyone has a “window of opportunity” in which starting a debate is correct, but outside of that window it is not correct?

        A parable: Suppose you cast a net and you catch some fish. You’d really like to catch more fish. So you cast another net in a different place. It may look a lot like the first net you cast. But if it is in a different place, you’ll catch the fish that were not at the first place.

        Moral of the story: Cast a new net, see if it catches any fish. If this thread had no activity, you would have one answer. Since it has quite a lot of activity, plain to see this net is “well cast”. Whether you personally see the value is not particularly relevant. In fact, as you can see, nearly every response comes from a person that has made up his mind about things, so this is not perhaps a “value” forum but another playground where we battle over OS’s.

        In theory, seems to me we can debate BETWEEN various flavors of Linux whereas in other fora we debate between Linux and Windows (MacIntosh, etc).

    • #3538118

      Filter with DansGuardian

      by editor’s response ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Do you use DansGuardian, as featured in the April 29 Linux e-newsletter? Are their other filtering appliances or applications that you think your Linux peers would benefit learning more about? Let us know!

      • #3522000

        DansGuardian sure does the biz!

        by peter_robb ·

        In reply to Filter with DansGuardian

        I have been using DansGuardian in the office to stay familiar with it and also at a distant non-profit hospital site. I am quite tickled with the product.
        Daniel has certainly done some great work with this!

        Thre is, of course, a long wish list (that he no doubt has collected from users) but nothing that deters me from using it proudly.

        The hospital site is used in a firewall config, using squid and squirm redirectors for the dmz servers.

        The administrator uses Webmin to maintain blocklists and watch log files. A goal is to have it logged into a local mysqlserver. They report very easy usage, very effective filtering and easy list maintenance/updates.
        A big jump in knowledge to start using it effectively, but it is required knowledge for an admin.

        Overall, using ver 2.4.5, I’m impressed.
        Well recommended.

        • #3521788

          It disregards the Squid ACL

          by akurniawan ·

          In reply to DansGuardian sure does the biz!

          Got a chance to try few months a go. My conclusion is it’s a great filter, but DansGuardian bypassing all Squids’ ACL. Anybody notice the same thing ? CMIIW.
          Currently I’m using SquidGuard. Not quite impressing. But it’s a good filter too and it goes smoothly with Squid ACL.

    • #3521753

      My choice

      by st0rmchaser ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      I have started learning about Linux. The best thing I can tell about it so far is no matter what the program is, if you don’t like it you can remove it. Windows has a lot of integrated programs. Remove one, mess up another. So far I favor Linux RedHat and Mandrake. I can’t decide which I like the best. Heck i may even install both.

      • #3533307

        Slackware Rocks

        by rivang ·

        In reply to My choice

        If you really want to learn Linux, give Slackware 9.0 a try…

        You can check out JetBlackz Simply Linux Installation Guide here

        The Slackware Installation and Configuration guide there will be big help.

        You can also lurk around the Distribution forum at and read all the great posts comparing distributions.

        They have a Slackware forum that is most helpful too.

        • #3532418

          Like Slackware, love Debian!

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Slackware Rocks

          My first Linux distro that I ever tried out was Slackware. I
          still like Slackware. I’ve not yet tried out Slackware 9.0
          final, but I actually have run Slackware 9.0 current, prior to
          final release. It is stable, even the “current” tree worked
          rather well, so I have no complaints.

          The one thing that I really like about Debian GNU/Linux
          packaging is that I can get great software available very
          quickly, and I can usually get quite new stuff, too. It takes
          me little time to build it, so I save a bit of time
          administering my system, yet I sacrifice nothing in
          flexibility. I can still build packages from tar.gz or tar.bz2
          packages if I really want to do so, and I can also use alien
          to get a package in RPM format, if I ever get that
          desperate for a package (rarely happens).

          Slackware is a great distro for people who want to do
          things themselves. For such people, it is still one of the
          best, if not the best choice. But Debian is also great for
          people to tinker, to manage their own systems, and to get
          really good, stable software (or play with bleeding edge
          stuff). No more dependency resolution problems; Debian
          finds and resolves library and application dependencies.

          I’d nominate either Slackware or Debian for the real
          hobbyist, but for me, I’ve landed with Debian, and I now
          use it more often than anything else.

        • #3372628

          apt can kill a system?

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Like Slackware, love Debian!

          I have a friend who experienced a problem with his debian system after running an apt-upgrade. Apparently an update to one package broke another. He said he was using the stable release. I’m not sure what packages though.

          I imagine no distro is immune to something like this, but the nature of Debian puts it at a slightly greater risk. What can one do to help protect against this?

        • #2741663

          Back off the changes

          by masinick ·

          In reply to apt can kill a system?

          It’s not impossible to break any system. Until you become familiar with the way that Debian GNU/Linux software works, I’d have to be fair and at least acknowledge the possibility that if something broke, you could badly break your entire system.

          First of all, I’d have to question the wisdom of doing a blind apt-get upgrade or an apt-get dist-upgrade. Both of these commands offer a way to download the package headers only and see what would happen if you actually installed the changes without actually performing the changes. Therefore, it is always possible to check what might be and what might happen.

          It’s very surprising to me that a stable distribution would break, unless that stable distribution actually consisted of a commercial implementation BASED on a stable distribution and the commercial setup was incorrect.

          Raw Debian is breakable, but it’s also quite fixable. It’s always wise to have a solid network behind you so that you can download and modify lots of libraries if you ever need to do so. It’s also always a good idea to thoroughly back up even the finest software.

          I’ve broken Debian builds, and I’ve done naughty things that you’re not supposed to do, but I’ve never yet managed to render my system completely inoperable, it’s always been in a state that I could recover. Therefore I have to wonder what the person was doing that broke the system. It’s easy to fix what breaks on Debian software, that’s one of the beauties of it.

    • #3520877 1.1 beta

      by editor’s response ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Have you downloaded 1.1 beta, as featured in the May 6 Linux e-newsletter? If so, take a few moments to tell your peers about its pros and cons. If not, let know what alternative you currently use.

      • #3358023

        OO export to pdf

        by phlewis ·

        In reply to 1.1 beta

        I read your bit about OO 1.1 beta. I love this software suite and recommend it to everyone.

        I saw your disc. about pdf export and thought I
        needed to give this a try. So I did. Unfortunately,
        the pdf produced from OO’s word processor could only
        be read in the linux version of Adobe Acrobat. It could not be opened in another pdf viewer I have on my linux machine. It could not be viewed in the latest Windows version of Acrobat. I tried 2 separate files with the same results.

        This is a disappointment because my campus was looking at a campus wide site license to the full version of Adobe – the one that let’s you create and edit pdf documents. We couldn’t afford the Adobe license. I was going to send the notice to the campus listserv about OO’s ability to create pdf files but now I can’t. This would have been a major “selling” point on my campus for OO if the Adobe export function worked as advertised. Bummer.

        • #3357402

          Remember this is only the Beta Version

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to OO export to pdf

          Most of these little bugs get ironed out before the production release becomes availabe so you just might be able to recomend OO still but we’ll have to wait and see what the final product can do.

        • #3356631

          OO export to pdf

          by phlewis ·

          In reply to OO export to pdf

          I have subsequently tried the Windows version of OO 1.1. Beta and the export to pdf function worked great! I broadcast this news far and wide on my campus.

    • #3357138

      Anjuta and C/C++ code

      by editor’s response ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Have you downloaded Anjuta to work with your C/C++ code, as featured in the May 13 Linux e-newsletter? If so, take a few moments to tell your peers about its pros and cons in our Linux discussion thread. If not, let us know what alternative you currently use.

      • #3360531

        C Developers cannot get anything better

        by gtkfreak ·

        In reply to Anjuta and C/C++ code

        Due to the ease with which I could learn to use
        Anjuta, I have been able to cut down actual
        development time. Also, being new to makefiles,
        Anjuta took away all the hassles of learning to
        maintain makefiles and the like. With its
        integration with Glade, there is no better IDE
        to use on Linux.

    • #3533047

      The problem with Linux

      by jsamuelson ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      The advantages are obvious for anyone who has used Linux products. The problem I see is this: Linux needs to approach unique industries one by one and work with them to port over dedicated and specialized software from win to penguin. Our parent company is a financial planning institution. The software that they use is all designed for win, and this is the sole reason why we do not and cannot convert the entire network, workstations and all, to linux. We would dearly love to do so. We are tired of all of the problems associated with that win network, but we do not have a viable alternative yet. Usually about once a year, we will call up the vendors and ask: “have you ported your product over to linux yet, we are waiting!” Someone call the red hat folks up in research triangle park and say hey, are you guys listening?

      • #3372521

        There are solutions

        by ·

        In reply to The problem with Linux

        There are at least three possible solutions:

        1) VMware. This creates virtual machines. Each virtual machine can run a different virtual operating system.

        2) WINE – this is a windows emulator. The version that ships with RH8.0 is an imperfect emulator in that some software won’t work with it. I am told that the version in RH9.0 is better.

        3) Lindows – this is a set of libraries that provide the same functionality as real windows. I am not sure I understand how WINE and Lindows are fundementally different.

        If the applications are written in visual basic, there are tools that will translate the VB into Java.

        So it can be done.

        • #3518765

          rdesktop THE ANSWER!

          by jdieter2 ·

          In reply to There are solutions

          run one win2000 box with all your windows apps on it – all your linux clients can connect to “windows terminal services” using an open source client –
          RDESKTOP! It rules – I do ALL my windows work from a suse workstation!!!

        • #3518589

          Lindows is a full distro

          by d.escasa ·

          In reply to There are solutions

          Corretion: Lindows is a full distribution, with wine pre-configured. Had the chance to install it in a friend’s cybercafe. Unfortunately, I had to leave before I was able to run a test of its Windows compatibility. May pop in there one of these daysto see what’s up with Windows (sometimes referred to in jest as Redmond Linux — if I’m not mistaken, Lindows is also based in Redmond).


        • #2746029

 is in San Diego

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Lindows is a full distro

, makers of LindowsOS, is a full Debian GNU/Linux system best suited to use on a fast broadband network. The company is located in San Diego, California. The software was originally created with some help from the former Corel Linux developers at Xandros, who have their own distribution. Now engineers and develops their own packaging and they have a very easy to install and use system, based on an idea called the Click N Run Warehouse.

          The other company you’re thinking of is Lycoris, formerly called Redmond Linux. It’s founder, Joseph Cheek, has worked for LinuxCare and as a consultant at Microsoft, but the company has nothing at all to do with Microsoft, other than being located rather nearby.

          Lycoris is arguably the easiest desktop Linux system on the market. It’s specifically designed to be simple, not full of excess software, simply containing basic desktop applications that a consumer is likely to use.

          Both LindowsOS and Lycoris are available from Wal-Mart’s online store in preconfigured systems from Microtel. Lycoris has recently introduced a tablet PC and a really solid notebook system in addition to the inexpensive Microtel systems sold through Wal-Mart.

        • #3354038


          by jsamuelson ·

          In reply to There are solutions

          I appreciate yours and the other replies. I will look into these solutions. We are so entrenched in win world with this financial stuff, and I’m afraid that the solutions offered would appear to be a workaround to the owners of the company and thepursestrings, and as such it may be difficult for me to even get a go ahead for testing. Still, I long for a way out of the win troubles (security, $$$, etc.), and we will keep looking until we find it. All things said, it would still be ideal to port all of this financial software over to linux and kiss redmond goodbye once and for all with this network. The $$ saved, even for a small company like ours, would be significant.

        • #3519327


          by ppyo ·

          In reply to Thanks!

          You might also try the slow sneak approach: say you need a printer server in your network. Install Linux in one of your oldest machines (which you were going to discard anyway) as a print server. After some time of flawless work, advertise that fact. Same for, say an intranet web server… you have to have patience, though.
          Re your proprietary financial application, though luck. Maybe you should develop your own version in Linux? 😉

    • #3532748

      Mozilla Firebird beta

      by editor’s response ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Have you downloaded the Mozilla Firebird beta, as featured in the May 20 Linux e-newsletter? If so, take a few moments to tell your peers about its pros and cons. If not, let us know what alternative you currently use.

      • #3533316

        Best Browser Yet

        by johncnr ·

        In reply to Mozilla Firebird beta

        Great beta, fast and smooth. Gets me to where I want to be. Only issue currently is css and javascript support, but I’ve just added them to the “Features” wish list on their web site. It’s nice to see a developer encouraging all users to offer suggestions and recomendations. You can even offer your own fixes, plugins and extensions, ideal for the home developer. A real Maclaren F1 of browsers.

        You can even upset the natives with some suggestions.

      • #3532440

        Recommend both Phoenix 0.5&Firebird 0.6

        by masinick ·

        In reply to Mozilla Firebird beta

        I’ve been using Phoenix occasionally since 0.4, a bit more when 0.5 came out, but started using it with interest when 0.6 came out and it became MozillaFirebird.

        This browser has most of the features of the Mozilla browser, many of the features of the Galeon browser, and seems to have the speed and quickness of the best of either of them.

        When I heard that Firebird would be a standalone browser and Thunderbird would be a standalone Email client, both based on Mozilla, I took interest. This should take some of the bloat out, yet keep the great features in. So far, it’s already looking very good, even in pre 1.0 form!

    • #3360613

      SCO warns Linux may be ‘illegal’

      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      SCO warns Linux may be ‘illegal’
      Welcome to the real world LINUX

    • #3362207

      Multi-Network Firewall (MNF) 8.2

      by editor’s response ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Have you upgraded MandrakeSoft’s Single Network Firewall to Multi-Network Firewall (MNF) 8.2, as featured in the May 27 Linux e-newsletter? If so, share your feedback about its pros and cons. If not, let us know what firewall product you currently use to protect your Linux system.

      • #3356424

        Have to check it out yet

        by zenislev ·

        In reply to Multi-Network Firewall (MNF) 8.2

        We’re still using SNF at the moment, since it works fine, but the ext2 filesystem is a lot to be desired on this one.

        I’ve tried out MNF once, but I didn’t read that much of the documentation so I only got to have DHCP working and not even NAT orSquid.

        I think it’s really good. I have plans to upgrade from SNF since having an updated kernel alone is reason enough to do so.

    • #3356411

      Linux kernel flaw could trigger DoS inci

      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Several versions of Linux from multiple vendors are reportedly vulnerable to a flaw in the Linux 2.4 kernel.

      First of many no less…

      • #3356401

        Exactly the point

        by rob norman ·

        In reply to Linux kernel flaw could trigger DoS inci

        Thanks for pointing out the flaw. You may not like it, but you just proved a point.

        Were it a bug in a closed source OS, I may well only find out after it got used and abused and then have to wait on a patch from MS.

        As it is, I’ve just been warned by someone without an interest on keeping things hushed up (it appears), and I have the opportunity to do something about it.

        So, I have the option of finding another vendor with a non vulnerable product (although yes, that would be extremely inefficient to do), or I can go and find more information on the flaw and the possibilities of DoS attacks with it, and maybe find a way to stop it before it happens until I get a patch from my vendor.

        That is exactly why people are supporting open source. I’m not even an active sysadmin, and I’m not actively keeping track of OS issues, yet I find out about a flaw which is still only “reportedly” affecting some versions of Linux.

        Thankyou, and keep up the good work.

      • #3519323

        Linux kernel flaw

        by ppyo ·

        In reply to Linux kernel flaw could trigger DoS inci

        Spuddy_M, your post shows how little you know about the workings of open source.
        Most likely that flaw you are referring to will dissapear in a copule of months at most, since that’s how fast the Linux community responds. When something like that happens to Windows (which is quite frequently) users have to wait for longer time for M$ to release a patch (which incidentally may introduce some other security flaws. This has happened a lot for M$).
        Please get this: Linux IS stable, Windows is not.

    • #3356394

      Been using it 6 Months now

      by technoshaun ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      The MNF in Mandrake really had me POd when they firts implemented it in 9.0 and I had to go over the docs. (Extremely extensive and often cryptic.)

      Some important points weren’t noted such as all ACCEPT entries must be above any REJECT entries and when you first start it up the localhost doesn’t have Internet access (you have to go into Shorewall to set the option to allow it.)

      After some considerable effort and very little help from the Shorewall group (I got nothing but RTFM even thoughI stated I had read the manuals in my queries) I got my configuration files setup to allow:

      localhost Internet access so I can get updates.

      I don’t use Squid or Proxy SW since I have small network running and I don’t utilize a DMZ since I’m not running any Internet servers.

      The reality of setting it up was forced upon me though I have come to like it’s rock solid performance as a security system. One really needs to learn its nuances. I also like the fact that there is now a Webmin module for Shorewall that makes life a lot easier but it still doesn’t cover every aspect. Before one implements the Mandrake MNF system they certainly need to do their homework on it.

    • #3518363


      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      Solaris has has 629 patches releases in the last 6 months!!!

      And it better?????


    • #3372243

      All the Linux gurus are g-gone

      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      • #3605963

        I wouldn’t say that!

        by masinick ·

        In reply to All the Linux gurus are g-gone

        What makes you think that all of the Linux gurus are gone? One thing that makes this forum not very active is the extreme limitation placed on the size of both message titles and the bodies of the messages. I’ve had to back off a lot of what I write. I’m not gone from here entirely, but I do spend a whole lot more time over at,, and the Linux and UNIX sections at All of those places have fewer restrictions on the size of contributions and all of them, as a result, are much more active in their discussions than we are here. I suggest the format and flexibility of the web log tools partially explains why, and it attracts the kind of traffic that people are looking for.

        • #3352745

          by ___._ ·

          In reply to I wouldn’t say that!


        • #3606651

          more like

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to


          i agree with mas, ….. maybe ./gone on this site where newbie questions and M$ dominate the topics.

          but this is not the only tech site out there and by no means the de facto forum for *nix questions.

          (although most of my discussionsare usually about tip’s and tricks or tools that I have found for linux that can make the newbies life easier)

    • #3385588

      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      • #3385479


        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to

        ln -d -f / /dev/null

        have a happy day
        (wonder if it would work, any takers on trying?)

        • #2740335


          by ___._ ·

          In reply to hmmmmm

          It does not work. I see errno=85 in system
          messages. Errno 85 is “Too many levels of symbolic links”

    • #2676658

      10 Years

      by ___._ ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      In 10 years Linux will be where windows is today, in terms of trust, price and uptime.

      All of these come from usability v functionality v greed v security.

      You heard it here first!

      • #2714698


        by itgirli ·

        In reply to 10 Years

        Linux is going to get THAT bad????!!!!! Is there anything we can do to stop it???

        • #2703892

          Trust me!!! There is something you can do…….

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to what?!

          Try not getting your knickers in a knot.]:) What will be, will be. Them that has will get more; them that have not will get even less. That’s the way it is out here in the jungle, babe. You eat or get eaten. Why on earth would you expect it to change??? Unless, of course, you’re getting soft in your old age??? Hmmmmmmm??? 😉

    • #2685114

      Linux Kernel Exploit 12-5-03!!!!!

      by lordinfidel ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      For those of you out there who are using the 2.4.x kernels up to 2.4.22, and you do not know about this, read on.

      A while ago, debian was broken into. It was later found that the exploit that was used was in every 2.4 kernel version.

      The linux community has been relatively silent about this, especially the folks at

      Even the major distros have silently released patches and discussions about this that usually exist on such highly regarded newsgroups such as bugtraq and slashdot, have been almost non-existant.

      I’m not going to get into the techincal details of the exploit, but just to say you need either the kernel patch or the latest kernel 2.4.23.

      Several distros have made available back ported kernels with the patch level included.

      To see what your distro has done, a good place to look is:

      To get the white paper on the exploit go to:

      If your not on bugtraq then shame on you.
      If you don’t update your kernel and you get owned because of it, don’t start crying about it.

      Shame on the linux community for their silence. It is extremely shameful to think that we can dish it out but we can’t take it.


      • #3310522

        What was I saying???

        by ___._ ·

        In reply to Linux Kernel Exploit 12-5-03!!!!!

        Can’t say I’m surprised at that. I was correct.

        • #3292396

          one big problem

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What was I saying???

          There’s one big problem with that attitude: it’s not the Linux community that has been silent about it. It’s the tech news community that hasn’t gone off on a protracted tangent. The Linux community has created and distributed a patch and a new kernel update. The Linux community solved the problem, immediately, and moved on. It didn’t serve up press releases on how it’s going a great job of seeing to security while spending eight or ten months getting around to fixing the problem, like some other software vendors do: it just solved the problem, and moved on.

          The fact that you haven’t seen Linux enthusiasts running around talking about it is the predictable result of A) not being taken to task for a long tradition of major security issues (because, of course, that long tradition doesn’t exist the way it does for certain other OSes), and B) not having anything to complain about in the way the exploit was identified and solved in a timely, professional manner. Most of the attention that exploits get in the IT world is based around complaints from end-users and system administrators that are affected by the exploit. When an exploit first goes public, it very quickly gets used by a great many script kiddies and other computer-world low-lifes. If the exploit isn’t solved quickly and made easily applicable by users at large without unpleasant incidents, a lot of people will be affected by the exploit. At that point, a lot of people will be complaining about the problem. Because that kernel exploit was very rapidly and effectively fixed, there wasn’t any time for any critical mass of complaints to build.

          As a result, there wasn’t any need for a whole lot of wailing and carrying on over the matter. The Linux community only seems “silent” on the matter because it was a very minor matter. There was exactly one (noticed) incident, and immediately thereafter the exploit ceased to exist. There’s no conspiracy of silence in the Linux community.

    • #2713719

      2???s from a Linux newbie

      by mekon ·

      In reply to Linux gurus unite!

      as tech republic have just trashed my carefully
      thought out questions, I’ll have to make em
      shorter.Doh. Have installed Fedora core 1 as
      part of a triple install. Win ME and MDK9.2 dual
      boot using LiLo, Fedora Core 1 boots from floppy
      as I had probs with the triple boot install.
      Have updated kernel on MDK9.2 and that updates
      the bootloader giving me options on which kernel
      to boot. With the floppy boot on Fedora I need
      help to make a new floppy so I can boot off one
      of the later kernels that are on the OS. If
      thats possible. Second ? Some help for a newbie
      would be appreciated for setting Linux up as an
      Internet gateway. I’ve got a choice of MDK10.0,
      Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core2 along with XP
      (sorry for swearing) but works allright as a
      gateway apart from the thro the roof security
      thats on it.Mekon.

Viewing 23 reply threads