PDA

View Full Version : Which Linux Distribution?



Paddy
6th November 2002, 08:00
I am after a version of Linux to play with on my P300 server. I just want to have a play really! I may use it as a http server eventually...

Anyway, there seem to be more linux distributions and variants out there than you can shake a sticky brown thing at.

Are there any major differences between them, or are they just cosmetic?

I am a complete linux virgin here! :D help!

Admiral
6th November 2002, 08:58
You're bound to get kicked to Alternative Lifestyle and from what I've read there Mandrake (with the Gnome 2 GUI) is supposed to be the thing for the newbie.
Not that I ever installed linux, but I also got an itch :D

Paddy
6th November 2002, 09:23
You know what, I didn't even think of Alt. Lifestyle!

How long have I been coming here :rolleyes:

Paddy
6th November 2002, 09:28
No Matrox hardware in this box! :P


Discussion of Matrox hardware running outside of the MS world, on the likes of BeOS, Linux, OS/2 etc.

Gurm
6th November 2002, 09:35
GOOD GOD not Red Hat, that's all I have to say.

- Gurm

Electric Amish
6th November 2002, 09:43
Originally posted by Gurm
GOOD GOD not Red Hat, that's all I have to say.

- Gurm

Why?

I just installed RH8 and it's pretty sweet.

amish

Slougi
6th November 2002, 10:56
Gentoo! :D

GT98
6th November 2002, 10:57
Originally posted by Gurm
GOOD GOD not Red Hat, that's all I have to say.

- Gurm

Yeah why not? We're using at work for a Gateway, but then again the kernal was compiled by JPL :D

Paddy
6th November 2002, 10:59
What would you recommend then RH8 or Mandrake? Or perhaps another?

dZeus
6th November 2002, 11:00
I've heard many times that Debian and Gentoo offer great package management software (simplifies the installation of software).

WyWyWyWy
6th November 2002, 11:09
For complete newbie...

- Redhat (easy to get support)
- SuSE (easy management)
- Mandrake (most newbies seem to like it)
- Xandro (feels like Windows)
- Lycoris (feels like Windows, good package selection (i.e. selected for you))

Not in particular order.

Gurm
6th November 2002, 11:12
RedHat 7.3 (8 isn't official yet, right?) was a nightmare. None of the "included" software worked as intended, took me a week to get everything running that I needed, despite ALL of it supposedly being "installed" with the system.

Mandrake 9, on the other hand - everything worked, first time through. :)

thop
6th November 2002, 11:55
debian

Marshmallowman
6th November 2002, 19:32
mandrake 9

I am not newbie, but I have long since got severly pissed off with configuring everything from the console with vi.

Mandrake has a very nice set of configuaration tools that are all GUI based, I still use vi for the occasional bit of tweaking.

And it is always very up to date.. .eg The latest gcc 3.2, kernel 2.4.19, KDE 3.1 ....etc

And there kernel package is very nice, you can configure and make yourself a nice custom kernel in no time.

Networking and firwall configuration is also excellent.

I have been using mandrake since version 7.0 it keeps getting better with every release.

I am getting very tempted to buy the big DVD version...no more disk swapping, and all the extra Apps like star office 6..etc :)

and no I don't have shares in mandrake...... yet :p

DGhost
6th November 2002, 19:52
ewww, Mandrake... Redhat is a much better distro than Mandrake... that being said, Mandrake is easier to install and use...

of course, nothings perfect when it comes to linux and i usually recommend FreeBSD instead :D

Pace
7th November 2002, 02:57
I've always heard Mandrake recommended above RedHat, although they are quite similar at heart. Once you get into it more, you might want to try a Debian based one, or FreeBSD.

Check out PCPlus Paddy, they quite often have distros on their cover disk, plus will help with installation :)

rugger
7th November 2002, 04:48
Slackware damn you, slackware.

Its the only linux distribution that isn't a hand holding, babying, annoying peice of doggy do that should have been removed up years ago but hasn't. :D

Of course, you actually need to learn something to use slackware :)

Ok, I take my comment about other distribtions back for debian. In debian's case, its the tin foil capped distribution that leaves you saying "WTF" :D

thop
7th November 2002, 05:09
nope debian is simply the best :)

Wulfman
7th November 2002, 05:17
Originally posted by thop
nope debian is simply the best :)

I agree. I'm also learning to use linux here - and installed debian. packet managment is nice and configuration files can be found easily.

debian is always a bit slow when it comes to including new software-versions, but if they include them, you can be sure that it works stable. on the opposite, they have an extremely low reaction time regarding security holes and the release of patches.

mfg
wulfman

thop
7th November 2002, 06:27
on the opposite, they have an extremely low reaction time regarding security holes and the release of patches.
hmm do you have to the following line in your sorces.list?

deb http://security.debian.org/ woody/updates main contrib non-free

also i'd recommend using the testing branch (sid) rather than stable, because some stuff in stable is really stone old.

rugger
7th November 2002, 07:05
I refuse to use debian until they do something about the initial installer.

It is the worst installer I have encountered, bar none.

And don't tell me to use apt-get for the inital install, because, as nice as it is, it is a pain in the butt trying to get all the package names correct. And the large number of software packages I install make that very tedious.

Once debian is installed though, it works great.

thop
7th November 2002, 07:21
i agree on the installer. there is a new one though which boots woody: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/

and if you dont remember the name of a package, then apt-cache search is for you :)

DGhost
7th November 2002, 07:54
see... honestly if you are gonna be looking at going to the level of slackware or debian, it would be wiser to just start off with FreeBSD... it works better with less of the inconsistancies of linux distrobutions, is more *NIX like, and just works better.

if you are new to the whole idea and need a GUI, i would give Redhat a try... personal experience has shown it works a lot better...

Debian is nice to keep updated, but thats about it... too much inconsistancy, too many obfusicated things... not really worth the bother to figure out unless you are going to try to improve it...

Slackware is wonderful, altho it has pretty much no mechanism for automatically staying updated... and distribution updates can get hairy... one of the reasons that Slackware is cool is because it is a BSD style distribution, so system boot scripts are relatively straight forward (altho not nessicarily full featured), and config files are all placed in a sane (in the everything in /etc sorta way) location, instead of being spread across half the drive like other distributions do...

personally, Linux has really gone down hill because of the fragmentation that has occured in the community...

rugger
7th November 2002, 08:20
I don't really feel the need to run freebsd much.

It is probably more reliable than linux, but:

1) No 3d opengl on Nvidia cards. Does freebsd even run Xfree 4.X yet by default. This is a killer problem. I think FreeBSD supports the rest of my hardware though.
2) Poor partioning support. I know you are going to say, that FreeBSD uses slices, which are infinitely better than regular partitions. However, I would prefer FreeBSD to blend nicely with the normal partioning system, rather than put its own on top. FreeBSD's special partioning also means I can't actually install it, because it wants a primary partition that I don't have spare.

And lets not talk too much about fragmentation. There has been a fair bit of it in the BSD camp too. :)

thop
7th November 2002, 08:36
hmm funny how opinions on linux differ so much :) imo red hat is one of the worst distros of them all, and rpm broken. the package db will become inconsistent sooner or later and you end up --force'ing your way through the jungle. deb is really much more sophisticated imo.

also i dont see any obfuscation in debian. things are there they are meant to be. it might not be 100% LSB compliant, but who gives a :)

DentyCracker
7th November 2002, 09:42
I have never been able to stand debian. I haven't used slackware or suse. I couln't stand Corel. Redhat was poor. The only linux I've been able to use in a manner comparable to Windows is Mandrake, from version 6.1 up

Paddy
7th November 2002, 10:06
I started to download Mandrake yesterday but the only version that i could freely find was 8.2. I notice that version 9 is out now but there seems to be a hefty price tag attached! :(

Admiral
7th November 2002, 10:15
Originally posted by Paddy [MU]
I started to download Mandrake yesterday but the only version that i could freely find was 8.2. I notice that version 9 is out now but there seems to be a hefty price tag attached! :(

Can't you access Mandrake's download page (http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ftptmp/1036692120.93067f3c85087cfc2c702340181e5d5f.php) ?

Paddy
7th November 2002, 10:22
Doh!

you very smart, me very stupid ...

Admiral
7th November 2002, 10:33
Originally posted by Paddy [MU]
Doh!

you very smart, me very stupid ...

look, I don't have anything with you, consider me "chalanged"
it has problems accessing the mirrors with IE, that's why I used Opera

I just started downloading the 9.0 ISO images from a Czeh site:

Mandrake90-cd1-inst.i586.iso (http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/linux/mandrake/iso/Mandrake90-cd1-inst.i586.iso)
Mandrake90-cd2-ext.i586.iso (http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/linux/mandrake/iso/Mandrake90-cd2-ext.i586.iso)
Mandrake90-cd3-i18n.i586.iso (http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/linux/mandrake/iso/Mandrake90-cd3-i18n.i586.iso)

Paddy
7th November 2002, 10:40
Cheers! For some ungodly reason, when i visited the page I failed to notice the fact that there were different versions!

Admiral
7th November 2002, 11:04
Say, does Nero check the image integrity by default before it starts burning ?
(don't want to screw the CDs for nothing)

edit: never mind, there were instructions (http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/linux/mandrake/iso/README) on the ftp site on how to check for integrity


Important note: take care to download the ISO in binary mode (FTP). By default Netscape download the file in ASCII mode which corrupt the image. You can check the integrity of the ISO file with the md5 key (md5sum mandrake.iso under Linux), go to http://www.etree.org/md5com.html to get the md5sum.exe version if you are using Windows)

Paddy
7th November 2002, 11:35
if the ISOs FUBARd it shouldn't load it.

efty
7th November 2002, 12:10
I don't feel comfortable using package management tools. I usually do a manual install.

Byock
7th November 2002, 13:31
Ok, heres the break down...( I'm sure I will get flamed, but hey! I'm a chicken)

Red Hat- Stable, easy to use. RPM Blows!

Mandrake- Red Hat Based, easiest to install,use, learn

FreeBSD- Secure, Stable. Pain in the *** as conf files in diff locations than in linux distros. Annoying.

Slackware- Advanced. If you dont like CLI, dont touch.

Corel-Great, easy to use, install, ect. Outdated. Don't expect a new version any time soon.

Debian- Install blows. Wouldn't touch it for that reason.

my .02 worth.

Wulfman
7th November 2002, 15:00
can someone explain me the problem with the debian installer?

it starts, you partition the hdd, choose / install whatever network & misc stuff you need, it runs some config scripts (mail, ssh, X?) - finish.

I've only used yast2 (suse) & debian installer so far - but I liked the debian version better: reduced to the necessary, imho.

mfg
wulfman

Paddy
7th November 2002, 15:03
As soon as my router arrives, i'll download it and tell you what i think. I am probably going to attempt to create a http/mail/file server. Would debian be suitable?

DGhost
7th November 2002, 15:45
the fun thing about FreeBSD is that its configuration files all go in standard, easy to figure out places... the places that config files are supposed to go in UNIX systems... places like /etc and /usr/local/etc - instead of having /etc/sysconfig/ containing a couple networking config files and /etc/sysconfig/networking containing ones as well...

about X on FreeBSD, they are shipping with 4.x standard on the latest releases, i believe. i don't believe its 4.2, but it is still 4.x. installing a new release of X isn't that difficult...

with the 3d support, that is mostly cause NVidia has not bothered trying to make it happen. their module will only run on linux, unfortunately. ATI's have been working in FreeBSD and with hardware accelerate, as has the Matrox G400 cards... with the Parhelia it would be harder as Matrox is relying on Linux kernel modules...

as far as parititoning support goes, what is poor about FreeBSD's? i'm not gonna say its infinately better than parititons, but all you need is a single partition for the drive and can divide it up as much as you want... instead of Linux where most distributions use a minimum of 2 of the 4 partitions available, with some going well beyond that and requiring all 4 of the partitions to be used (with one defined as an extended partition).

i completely fail to see how that makes it so hard to blend with a normal partitioning scheme... it only uses one partition, much less than linux distros...

Marshmallowman
7th November 2002, 17:50
Admiral, there is a little proggie called MD5 that will generate a checksum/crc thingy for each of the ISO's, compare that with the one's shown on the mandrake site to see if the images have downloaded correctly before burning the CD's.

Something nice about 9 and probably some other distros is that they are LSB compliant (linux standard base) so more and more software should install more conisistantly over all the compliant distros's :)

Admiral
10th November 2002, 15:20
How much space should I reserve for the linux partition ?
I'm only installing it for learning purpose and not willing to give it more than 5gb.
Is 3 gb about right ?

bsdgeek
10th November 2002, 15:35
FreeBSD:
XFree86 4.2.1
Recently released Nvidia Accelerated drivers, ATi up to 8500 supported, all recent Matrox except Parhelia of course.

Edit:
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/dri/
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=freebsd_1.0-3203

Gear
10th November 2002, 16:54
Originally posted by Paddy [MU]
As soon as my router arrives, i'll download it and tell you what i think. I am probably going to attempt to create a http/mail/file server. Would debian be suitable?

Hmmm, IMO Debian, even Sid/Unstable it's too slow in updates (security & other sys apps), for a server.
On the other hand, for workstations I choosed debian because I just ssh to them, run apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade, maybe confirm some dialogs & I'm done. When there are 2,3 dozen machines, I don't want to have run into problems and/or spend hours and hours ... And it has a pretty nice default config: no unneeded and dangerous services running (rpc, daytime, ftp... etc), and X is run with unix sockets only (X -nolisten tcp) :) .

If you're building just 1 or 2 server's, and have a little bit of experience, I'd recomend Gentoo Linux. Before I tell you why, you should now that you need 2 things in order to be efficient with it:
1) bandwith (the more, the better - just like ... u know) 2) Mhz/Ghz same rules as 1), and a decent amount of RAM. After you install it (read the extensive install instructions on gentoo.org), with i.e. stage 3, which takes no more than 15-20 min, you get a base system. Just after you boot the install cd and config the net card, you can copy/transfer files with ftp,scp, or connect with ssh, and then continue with cd/network install.
The next step is to config. the general 'make' options (compiler flags), rsync the list of packages, and recompile new/all/single packages with the same settings. You can configure also what dependencies you want, e.g. if it's a server you can set USE='-xfree -gnome -kde -opengl ...etc' so it's not installed automatically if some stupid package could run on X also, or some other stupid depend.
The package system is named Portage, written in Python (not very fast, but I had no problem, or inconsitencies with it - unlike RPM based distro's where when there are many packages, it goes crazy... ), is the best that I found till now (it's 'stollen' from OpenBSD ports system, which in turn is 'stolen' from FreeBSD's ports system), because it's the most flexible one, the fastest in terms of vers. update (not all packages, but security bugs are a priority), and if you want, you can mask certain packages, and install them by hand, or with special config. options, and it never touches those files, even if you update all the other ones.
Oh, and another reason why I consider Portage better the *BSD's one is that majority of packages are written for Linux, and because of that they ar less likely to brake, and easier to maintain/update (i.e. don't need any linux emulation with separate glibc libraries in a fbsd/obsd box, and various quirks/hacks to make it work - think of 3D X apps that require libGL.so, and half want the linux one, the other half the fbsd one... .... ....). I almost forgot: when I installed fbsd 4.5 on a P4 1.5ghz with 256ram, G400 max, and I recompiled the default kernel, rebooted and saw that the kernel msgs (the one in bold white) were printed in red, and after that crashes and lock-ups. I managed somehow to build another one....
Of course, if you want to update package X with the sec. patch that came out an hour ago, you can install Slackware, and do all by yourself. And it's probably faster...
I don't consider RedHat/Mandrake/SuSE (I installed over 40-50 SuSE workstations) as a viable option for a server. They are just too bloated, easy to brake, and dangerous....
FreeBSD, hmmm... how impressed I wast the 1st time when I installed it on a machine (wkstation), over Linux (with 4yrs of exp. then), because of it's compiling speed (I still am, but OpenBSD it's pretty close if not faster), straightforwardness, and the lack of christmas tree feeling - the jungle some/most linux distro's are now in. That was on a slow and old machine - a P233 MMX, with 32MB RAM, a CL GD5446 2meg card, with SCSI onboard and fbsd was v. 3.5/3.6 (I think). I had problems, but at that time I needed smth. different from Linux, and it appeared a much better choise. If I had a brand new rig. I think I would run into many driver/buggy support issues... I installed a few other machines with newer versions, both desktops and servers.

If you really want security/clean code/speed/robust design, AND have a single processor machine with common hardware, you can install the best UNIX os for a server, OpenBSD. It has so many new advancedments(mechanism) in (proactive)security, than any other BSD or Linux (check openbsd.org, all the headlines on deadly.org for the past 2 years). And it has the most simple/clean/straightforward/fastest install I ever encounterd, and maybe that's why It had no remote root hole in 5 years (or 1 in almost 6 years), with the default install.

Just my 2 cents...

pfiu... the largest post i wrote, so it seems...

Gear
10th November 2002, 17:06
Originally posted by Admiral
How much space should I reserve for the linux partition ?
I'm only installing it for learning purpose and not willing to give it more than 5gb.
Is 3 gb about right ?

It's .... about right. But if you install all Gnome 1.4 or 2.0, all KDE 3.1 (or 2.2), lots of games, OpenOffice, all HowTo's/Docs/FAQs, and many other programs, you can end up filling it up. But if you select your packages carefully, you should be ok. One notice though, it's wise to have a separate /home partition for your files, so that if for example you want to reinstall it (sys broken, or smth), you keep you files, and most settings...
And don't forget the swap partition, usually 2x ram, but no more than 500MB, if it's just for your home machine, because if you fill it up (ram + swap ~= 700-800) you really have some problem: memory leaks (hint, hint Bugzilla, sorry Mozilla), or way to many apps running, and the system shoud crawl because of the HDD seeks for new 4k pages in swap, while reading others...:(

I assume you have broadband, from the CD(install ISO's) links you listed before... good 4 you...:p

rugger
10th November 2002, 19:33
Originally posted by DGhost
the fun thing about FreeBSD is that its configuration files all go in standard, easy to figure out places... the places that config files are supposed to go in UNIX systems... places like /etc and /usr/local/etc - instead of having /etc/sysconfig/ containing a couple networking config files and /etc/sysconfig/networking containing ones as well...

Doesn't happen that way on slackware. everything is in /etc and /usr/local/ect, where it should be. X configuration is in /etc/X11


Originally posted by DGhost
about X on FreeBSD, they are shipping with 4.x standard on the latest releases, i believe. i don't believe its 4.2, but it is still 4.x. installing a new release of X isn't that difficult...

Yep, X isn't a big deal to install, even from source or precompiled tarballs


Originally posted by DGhost
with the 3d support, that is mostly cause NVidia has not bothered trying to make it happen. their module will only run on linux, unfortunately. ATI's have been working in FreeBSD and with hardware accelerate, as has the Matrox G400 cards... with the Parhelia it would be harder as Matrox is relying on Linux kernel modules...


Nvidia now has 3d drivers for freebsd. Someone, somewhere tempted fate by abusing a freeBSD user because linux had Nvidia drivers. :D


Originally posted by DGhost
as far as parititoning support goes, what is poor about FreeBSD's? i'm not gonna say its infinately better than parititons, but all you need is a single partition for the drive and can divide it up as much as you want... instead of Linux where most distributions use a minimum of 2 of the 4 partitions available, with some going well beyond that and requiring all 4 of the partitions to be used (with one defined as an extended partition).

Yep, all I need is a single normal partition. Unfortunately, it has to be a primary partion and that means I can't get the FreeBSD onto my system.

Linux can just as easily run on a single partition. In fact, I am too lazy to bother using multiple partitions in my linux setups and I haven't run into any problems yet. :)


Originally posted by DGhost
i completely fail to see how that makes it so hard to blend with a normal partitioning scheme... it only uses one partition, much less than linux distros...

Well, my excuses are:
1) If you have more than one partition per slice, linux will have difficulty mounting the data on the freebsd drive. Same with any other operating system that doesn't understand FreeBSD slices.
2) It demands to use a primary partition for its slice, I don't have any of those left. Whereas linux can install anywhere and LILO will happyly boot it for you.

Paddy
11th November 2002, 02:58
hmm.. lots of opinions here! :)

Perhaps if i rephrase the question...

I have a P2 300 with 256MB of RAM and approximately 16GB of disk space. I want to use it as a http/mail server.
I have limited experience with linux, but i hear it is the way to go for this sort of thing.

I have tried this in the past using 2Kserver and Exchange but i was never able to configure it properly.

Would linux be a better option? If so which operating system should i go for?

Paddy
11th November 2002, 02:59
OK, perhaps i didn't really rephrase it that much... :D

I hear Debian and Gentoo... any advances?

rugger
11th November 2002, 03:35
Originally posted by Paddy [MU]
OK, perhaps i didn't really rephrase it that much... :D

I hear Debian and Gentoo... any advances?

I strongly recommend against using either of these distributions as your first distribution.

Debian will have you pulling your hair out over the install.

Gentoo will have you sitting around for days while your system compiles. Thats if you can work out the setup and get your network working.

I recommend the following:
1) Slackware. If you want to go hardcore, start with slackware. It isn't perfect, but you will learn a lot and be ready to move onto something even more hardcore, like gentoo or debian. It also has a half decent installer that will sort of guide you through installation. It is a 1 disk download. (2 extra disks, but not needed for install)

2) Redhat. If you don't intend to be a real hardcore linux user, this is a good place to start. It has a decent install, and it guides you a fair bit, but it isn't too weird that stuff doesn't work properly on it when you recompile things. Redhat is a 3 disk download. (3 extra, but not needed disks) Redhat will give you basic linux knowledge, but it won't force you to become a uber-user and you will get the experience to decide if you want to learn more (slackware, debian, gentoo), or less. (mandrake)

Now, I don't really recommend mandrake as an inital distribution because:
1) It tends to be more difficult to do low level things in it because of all the extra top heavy polish it has.
2) You really need to learn how to operate the OS at a fairly low level (like compiling programs and kernels) if you want to run mail servers and stuff (and keep them secure)

But these are just my recommendations.

thop
11th November 2002, 04:20
for your first linux experience try SuSE, it will make your life easy. stay away from slackware! once you've got some experience go slackware or debian/gentoo.

Paddy
11th November 2002, 04:30
two people, lots of opinions! :D

OK, let me try again. I will use any OS, although i'd appreciate some help. If thop can talk me through setting up a mail/http server then i shall use SuSE. If Rugger can help with Slackware, Red Hat or debian then that's what i'll go for...

Sorry for being a PITA!

rugger
11th November 2002, 05:17
I will help you with slackware install, and probably redhat too.

I don't think very user friend distros are the way to go, since they tend to coddle users too much and they never learn anything. :)

Paddy
11th November 2002, 05:44
hehehe :)

I want to learn, but i have to have the mail server up and runing within the next 20days. That's when my existing email addys go down.

Paddy
11th November 2002, 05:59
I've been reading up on mail servers... I'm not sure if it is a bit overkill, but then what the hell! :D

I want to create valid internet email addresses, be able to receive POP3 and IMAP and then filter messages to the appropriate account.

I have discovered that Exim, Postfix, Qmail and Sendmail are quite popular although they look fairly complex for a linux newbie like myself...

Any suggestions?

rugger
11th November 2002, 06:55
Postfix is by far the easiest to setup mail server. Mail servers are amazingly easy to set up. You just tell postfix:

1) your domains.
2) Ip addresses that postfix will accept outgoing mail from (so that your box does not become an email relay for spammers)
3) Other minor details I can't remember at the moment.

POP3/IMAP will ussually come with your distribution. These do not need to be kept secure unless you intend to download your email over the internet. (you can firewall these off)

Having your own mailserver is not by any means overkill. Having your own mailserver means:

1) your not at mercy of your ISP's mail server and it's avaliability (for both incoming and outgoing mail)
2) you can do virus filtering at the server, rather than at your desktop
3) you can have as many email addresses as you want, and you can spool mail up to your heats content.
4) You can use the protocols you want to use to access your email.

Additional, you can run on your server:
1) Caching DNS server. You can serve your domain name from here, or simply use it to do lookups for domain names, so that you do not rely on your ISP's DNS server
2) Squid cache. You can use the squid cache to do ad blocking, and as a general cache for your network. Squid is a HTTP/FTP/HTTPS proxy.
3) Web server. You get to use the dynamic languages you want, rather than what your ISP forces onto you. You can also intergrate your email system with it, so you can access your email over the internet.

And you know whats great, Linux will do all of the above for at least 50-100 users on that single machine.

Sasq
11th November 2002, 06:58
As for mail, personally I use quickmail/vpopmail

Admiral
11th November 2002, 07:35
Originally posted by Gear


It's .... about right. But if you install all Gnome 1.4 or 2.0, all KDE 3.1 (or 2.2), lots of games, OpenOffice, all HowTo's/Docs/FAQs, and many other programs, you can end up filling it up. But if you select your packages carefully, you should be ok. One notice though, it's wise to have a separate /home partition for your files, so that if for example you want to reinstall it (sys broken, or smth), you keep you files, and most settings...
And don't forget the swap partition, usually 2x ram, but no more than 500MB, if it's just for your home machine, because if you fill it up (ram + swap ~= 700-800) you really have some problem: memory leaks (hint, hint Bugzilla, sorry Mozilla), or way to many apps running, and the system shoud crawl because of the HDD seeks for new 4k pages in swap, while reading others...:(

I assume you have broadband, from the CD(install ISO's) links you listed before... good 4 you...:p

Nah, just a sucky cable connection shared with 10 other guys over a LAN. Took me roughly 30-40 hours to d/l the 1.8 gb
:clown:

Guess I'll give it 5gb. I have a 45gb IBM split in half, one partition is FAT32 with 98SE on it, the other NTFS with XP Pro.
I plan on resizing the NTFS partition when I get hold of Partition Magic.
Must I really do two partitions, apps and swap, or they can live together on one 5gb partition ?

thop
11th November 2002, 07:59
postfix/qpopper

rugger
11th November 2002, 08:18
Originally posted by Admiral


Nah, just a sucky cable connection shared with 10 other guys over a LAN. Took me roughly 30-40 hours to d/l the 1.8 gb
:clown:

Guess I'll give it 5gb. I have a 45gb IBM split in half, one partition is FAT32 with 98SE on it, the other NTFS with XP Pro.
I plan on resizing the NTFS partition when I get hold of Partition Magic.
Must I really do two partitions, apps and swap, or they can live together on one 5gb partition ?

You should use a separate partition for swap, as performance of swap files is less than swap partitions.

Of course, if you have lots of memory, you could always do without swap

Paddy
15th November 2002, 02:02
I borrowed a copy of Mandrake 9.0

I was very impressed with the OS as a whole, although i couldn't navigate at all : Practice i guess!

I need to set up a mail server withing in the next few days.. I can't help but wonder if 2K/exchange would be a better option, if only because I have it and can manipulate the environment easily...
I tried exchange a while back, but i discovered that it didn't support POP3 unless you had the SBE edition...

Just thinking out loud...

Any opinions?

rugger
15th November 2002, 02:07
No, don't use exchange :)

Paddy
15th November 2002, 02:08
is there another mail server proggie that i culd use?

rugger
15th November 2002, 02:17
I don't know of any windows mailservers :(

DGhost
15th November 2002, 02:20
exchange is fine if set up right. ideally only on a lan with another box doing filtering between it and the internet.

as far as other software goes, try Mercury Mail (http://www.pmail.com/whatsnew/new_m32.htm) for windows. made by the people who did pmail (pegasus mail... the memories it brings back)...

nikai
15th November 2002, 04:32
At the moment I'm using postfix on my boxes, and I can confirm that it's very easy to configure.

I also like the profound documentation
http://www.postfix.org/docs.html