die bohne der nacht ([info]nixietube) wrote,
@ 2005-08-02 15:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
penguin attack!
I think I'd like to install LINUX, and it seems that Red Hat went commercial. Anyone have any suggestions of a good flavor to install? I'm considering Red Hat 9.0 (pre-commercial), Fedora, or debian.

I'd like one that lets me compile linux source straight from the tarball (no porting!). The next primary features that I'd like are stability and security. Last comes an easy, non-windoze-destroying install and the ability to read/write NTFS file systems (am I asking for too much here?).

I plan to do some wireless things with my new LINUX box. Anyone ever play with one of those range extender antennae? Do they work well? Here's the one I'm eyeballing:

Hawking HAT15SC

(Read 5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ghosthacked
2005-08-03 03:44 am UTC (link)
1. linux source straight from the tarball, what do yo umean, recomping the kernel in /usr/src/linux and then moving the kernel image to / by hand, such that you don't need a pkg manager for it? It's fairly easy to use debian's kernel-pkger

2. stability and security? It's better than windows (tm). Debian stable is very stable and the apt-get has the security update site in there.

3. writing NTFS i thought was still experimental. reading is no sweat. non windoze destroying install is ez if you already have a 2nd partition. If not, well the hard part is playing with partition magic.

Red hat 9.0 was really really slow for me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nixietube
2005-08-11 07:19 pm UTC (link)
1. Nothing so complicated. I want to do a "tar xvf code.tar", then run "make" and that's it. No missing library errors. No changing the code to match BSD functions. In other words, no porting! The code packages that I'm interested in are LINUX only. I'm not really interested in recompiling kernels nowadays (tho admittedly it does make the machine boot and sometimes run faster).

2. Practically everything's more secure than windoze. :>

3. Probably reading NTFS is good enough for now. Looks like debian stable might be the way to go. I'll have to do some partitioning "magic" no matter what I install, unfortunately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ghosthacked
2005-08-11 10:52 pm UTC (link)
the code pkgs you want - do they currently run on redhat? Debian stable has the problem of being "old" by default. Which means if you're needing bleeding edge libs you're going to have to get em or install them somehow. Which is a little pain. HOWEVER- if you are running stuff that isn't bleeding edge (which for me seems to be not gnome-gtk-kde-moz-gui-oriented) then getting the libraries are simple just apt-cache search for the foo library and apt-get install libfoo-dev (for the header files).

From what I can tell the tradeoff between debian and redhat is ease maintain-ablility vs. newness of libs. Also redhat tends to chug more since more stuff is installed by default, whereas in debian, hell, even traceroute isn't installed by default.

Cheers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read 5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…