🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:42:43, "Mark L. Kahnt" <kahnt@adan.kingston.net> wrote:

> Peter Jespersen wrote:
> > 
> > On 19 Nov 2000 06:20:28 GMT, stens@powertech.no wrote:
> > 
> > >On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:23:52, "Peter Jespersen" <flywheel@worldonline_dot_.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> IMO RH is a bit to busy getting the distributions on the street,
> > >> adding too damn much not peroperly tested stuff. Have never had
> > >> any problems with SuSE and Mandrake.
> > >
> > >Which Linux flavour do you find "best", or like the most?
> > 
> > Actually it is SuSE, because of the textmode YAST setup
> > utility....I have never become good friends with the graphical
> > version YAST2. Also...tons of applications is bundled with the
> > system (Last time I looked it was about 1500)...yes I'm
> > LAZY...SuSE is also very keen on introducing new features, like
> > ReiserFS...but not without testing. Never had any trouble...Even
> > though a couple of friends of mine have had some with some of
> > the X.0 versions.
> > 
> > Linux Mandrake is very easy to set up, the harddrive manager
> > looks like PQMagic, it is very simple to handle via graphical
> > setup/installation programs.
> > 
> > Actually it is a Mandrake I have installed at the moment, until
> > a SuSE 7.2 or something like that hits the street (eCS and a
> > CR-RW has totally drained my finances at the moment :o)
> > 
> > As you might have guessed...I do not download the distributions
> > through my V90 connection.
> > 
> > Live long and prosper...
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >  Peter Jespersen, Team OS/2 Denmark
> >  flywheel@worldonline.dk
> >  http://www.worldonline.dk/~flywheel/
> >  si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace be ready for war)
> 
> I originally tried Slackware a few years back, but I could never get a
> working installation. I switched to Debian (I had one of those Linux
> Developers' Resource CD sets), which did kinda install, but various
> parts really weren't there yet. I stepped away for a few months, and
> then tried again, with a new release of those CDs, and RedHat 4.2, which
> gave me a working installation.
> 
> But by that point, I'd read up on Debian and because I do some
> programming, I wanted to avoid license *gotchas* that might occur with
> some of the stuff shipped with RedHat or SuSE, and with Debian, if it
> isn't GPLed, it is very clearly indicated. I installed Debian 1.3.1, and
> have been a Debian shop ever since.
> 
> That said, Debian is a bugger to install, compared to everyone else.
> Once installed, it is VERY easy to maintain, however, due to automated
> online updating and upgrading support. If you want to try Debian, I
> would suggest looking for Storm Linux, which is Debian with an
> installer. Not sure if the installer is as good as Mandrake or RedHat,
> but it is definitely better than Debian proper if you have little
> experience installing operating systems beyond OS/2.
> 
> I've installed Linux on a few other systems for clients since then, and
> what I traditionally do is install the base system and enough to get
> online, and then get the rest from the closest Debian mirror using the
> Advanced Package Tool (apt-get, and now it's sister program,
> console-apt). Gets me all of the security updates and related fixes
> since the CD was burned (Debian makes a point of back-porting all
> security and bug fixes to the currently supported versions of software,
> so you don't need to commit to a new generation of software to get the
> bug fixes and general security.)
> 
> One consideration is that you should be willing to set aside a day for
> an installation - whatever distribution you choose. Linux requires much
> more configuration of services as there is generally much more on the go
> at a system level, as often you are using what are effectively server
> tools to do what is usually more of a client function. As well, unlike
> Windows, Mac and OS/2 generally having one standard included tool for a
> particular function, Linux usually has anywhere from two to twenty-two
> different options. A good example of that is what do you want to use as
> a text editor - usually there are multiple flavours of emacs, of vi, and
> many others such as joe, jed, xedit, textedit, gedit, xfedit, kedit (I
> don't run KDE here, so I don't know the name they use). If you are
> running X, are you going to run GNOME, KDE, CDE, or do you want to pass
> on using a full environment and go with a general window manager, such
> as WindowMaker, AfterStep, Enlightenment, BlackBox, IceWM, twm, ctwm,
> FVWM(1, 2, or 95), OpenLook or uwm (and there are numerous others)? Once
> installed, do you want to build your own kernel (smaller and sometimes
> faster, and likely noticeably more up to date than the kernel in a
> distribution from CD)? Do you want to add themes?

Hahaha!  I now see how, once one gets entangeled in Linux, it is virtually
impossible to get out...  :-)  Well, I need a 2nd hdd before I install eCS. If I
also install Linux, I will have 5 boot partitions (OS/2 service partition/Warp 3/
Warp 4/eCS/Linux). I.e., if that is feasible. I also have an unused hidden C: 
partition reserved for Win98, but I never seem to find the time to install it...

You recommend Debian, while Peter recommends SuSE or Mandrake.
Others have recommended RedHat. I guess Linux flavour preference is
akin to, say, file manager preference...  However, since I get the impression
both you and Peter are at home with Linux, I am leaning towards Debian or
SuSE.  But first a 2nd hdd. And perhaps a CD burner for Christmas!?

--
Best regards
Sten