[CALUG] Linux choices

[Jason Dixon]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Clinton Ebadi wrote:

> 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..."]


I was about halfway through your email when I stated thinking about  
how easy it is to maintain OpenBSD.  When I got to the end I literally  
laughed out loud.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net