linux

[cruelpupet]

anyone here a linux fan???

Im going to try redhat 7.0

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/7.0/en/iso/

what part of the ISO do i need???


(I know there are newer versions...but i need 7.0 and nothing above kernal 2.2.19, to use with checkpoint firewall)

[mojo]

i only used the first 2 disks. the powertools isn't necessary for an OS install.

[aglio412]

i'd use 7.1 or 7.2, there were some significant security fixes from 7.0, here's a link (assuming x86 platform)

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/7.2/en/iso/i386/

you need:
enigma-i386-disc1.iso
enigma-i386-disc2.iso

have fun! if you need any help installing/configuring, be sure to email or post!

[jase71]

I haven't used any flavors of Redhat since a brief experiment with 5.2 years ago... I ran Caldera for a while, Mandrake after that, and Suse most recently, a year or so ago.

But I'm itching to put together another Linux machine since I've got broadband again.

Linux just gives you so much more ability to tweak, alter, and customize than Windows...

Well, now I'm jonesing for a Linux box again...

[mojo]

Originally posted by aglio412
i'd use 7.1 or 7.2, there were some significant security fixes from 7.0, here's a link (assuming x86 platform)

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/7.2/en/iso/i386/

you need:
enigma-i386-disc1.iso
enigma-i386-disc2.iso

have fun! if you need any help installing/configuring, be sure to email or post! traditionally speaking, the x.0 and x.1 releases are lesser releases of the x.2 of the series. the x.0 is the major release, the x.1 is like the preview of the x.2, and the x.2 is the more stable. sometimes there are reasons to use the x.0 and x.1 versions. i usually opt for the x.2s, with a custom kernel if i can help it.

[aglio412]

Originally posted by chosenfool
oh no. red hat.

if this is your first time with linux, good luck with red hat. Its not as easy as other distributions to set up. Theres no support (i think) if you just download the iso images and burn them onto a CD. Its best to get red hat retail, that way you can actually get tech support when you call them up.

that being said, the other distros are far easier to configure and setup. Ive tried caldera, corel, and mandrake, with mandrake being the easiest to install. almost like holding you by the hand as you install it from CD boot up to the desktop configuration.

well redhat may not be the simplist to install, but in the long run, i've been the happiest with it. chosenfool has a point though, if you want something super easy, go with mandrake, but in the long run, i think you'll be happier with redhat.

[mojo]

actually now that anaconda works, the install of redhat is a lot easier than it used to be. it's even graphical and purty and stuff. mandrake takes longer to boot on this thing, which does not please me (it takes forever compared to rh). i didn't see that either was really hard to install. i mean, they both probe for devices and such.

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by aglio412
if you want something super easy, go with mandrake, but in the long run, i think you'll be happier with redhat. I agree with Mandrake being super easy, but in the long run, I feel that SuSe or Debian would be best. :)