[CALUG] Linux choices

[Clinton Ebadi]

Russ <rmain at polaris.umuc.edu> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I want to install and dual boot a another version of linux at home.  I'd
> like to backup data, share files between Windows and Linux, practice web
> development, web deployment, scripting, have a stable, dependable system,
> and learn more about Linux. I am a recent CS graduate.   I'm looking for
> pros/cons on wheteher to use RHEL vs. Fedora.  Are there big
> disadvantages/limitations in using RHEL and not paying for support?  Do I have 
> access to the same package updates/resources that a paying customer has?

I would suggest steering clear of Redhat derivatives. They are only
just now kind of catching up to the quality that Debian had around
1999. That said, if you really must use either RHEL or Fedora go with
Fedora because RHEL is really only meant for /Enterprise/ development,
and my sysadmin friends who have to deal with it want to take Bob &
Marc out behind the chemical sheds... (e.g. when your license expires
you can't update anymore)

I'd suggest trying Debian. I was able to install it without any issues
when I fifteen, and this was back when I had a machine with a few ISA
cards and the installer didn't even detect their IRQs (oh potato). I
tried installed Ubuntu on my laptop about a year and a half ago to see
how this newfangled fancy stuff worked, but it refused to boot with
ACPI enabled which kind of made it useless. I was able to install a
prerelease of sarge onto my laptop a bit over a year ago, and it went
along detecting my hardware and working fine. Hibernation to RAM and
disk both worked on the first try even.

Debian has a huge package repository that is generally up to date as
long as you track testing or unstable. Upgrades are trivial--run
`apt-get upgrade' and your system is up to date! I haven't reinstalled
my workstation since 2000; it started off with Debian potato and has
been through two instances of brain surgery (166Mhz pentium -> 500Mhz
k6-2 -> 2x2.13Ghz AthlonMPs). There are excellent tools for quickly
searching the package repository, and almost any piece of software you
could ever want is an apt-get install away. There are a number of
miscellaneous nice things as well, e.g. module-assistant lets you
trivially build kernel modules so getting stuff like openafs to work
is an apt-get install and watch the package system build and load the
modules for you away!

Of course, I'm now part of the new TWM using damn you kids these days
with your new fangled three dee graphics and desktop environments
generation now with my WindowMaker and emacs, so perhaps my opinion is
not worth much on whether to use Debian versus Ubuntu. Still, I
suggest using one of them. Most people would suggest starting with
Ubuntu, but I suggest starting with Debian and only going to Ubuntu if
you fail. If you succeed you get nerd cred and can mingle with the
elite nerds while calling those Ubuntu users lamers ;-) [Cue Jason
Dixon: "well, if you used OpenBSD like I do you'd realize anyone using
gnu/linux is lame..."]

-- 
Jessie: i stuck the phone antenna up the dogs nose and he ignored me