linux for a starter...

  • brin0019
  • Born
  • Born
  • brin0019
  • Posts: 3
  • Loc: ottawa - canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

I am trying to find a good linux for my parents computer because windows ... well its windows.. I need to get something that would be easy for them to use so nothing with a lot of command line. i was just woundering if any one had any suggestions. thanks a bunch.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • PsyckBoy
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • PsyckBoy
  • Posts: 204
  • Loc: SoCal

Post 3+ Months Ago

Havn't tried it, but Ubuntu strives to be user friendly and easy to install. It's based on Debian so you also have access to the very comprehensive Debian package database.
  • Daemonguy
  • Moderator
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2700
  • Loc: Somewhere outside the box in Sarasota, FL.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quite frankly, unless you have time to manage it for them, I would not really consider the option.

However, if you are dead-set into pushing them into this, I might suggest something even easier; something that contains all the requisite dependencies and programs already instantiated.

I am speaking about Freesbie, PCBSD, or Knoppix.

Freesbie and Knoppix both run from the cdrom -- handy if you want to get them accustomed but not format the drive. Freesbie is FreeBSD Unix and Knoppix is a linux disto. The point is, they are live cd's which can be installed onto the hard drive. They both come with all the software you could need to include; firefox, thunderbird, openoffice, etc. et al.

The other is PC-BSD, also built from FreeBSD unix. This however is merely a simple installer -- requires nearly no unix knowledge to accomplish and starts up into kde 3.4. (Not surprisingly quite familiar to Mac OS-X users. ;) )

I am sure there are more, but there's the idea. Find something that is simply maintained or built, as you may find yourself doing it a few times. :)

Cheers.


Links:
http://www.freesbie.org/
http://www.pcbsd.org/
http://www.knoppix.org/
  • MISC/A++
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 508
  • Loc: UnderGround

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I am trying to find a good linux for my parents computer because windows ... well its windows


Why what’s wrong with windows, if you don’t like it then don’t use it..

Quote:
I need to get something that would be easy for them to use so nothing with a lot of command line


I think windows is most user friendly as an OS, if you are newbie to Linux then you will have to spend time fixing your problems it might even take days in order to fix it so I would say stick to windows and install Linux so you can start practicing.
  • brin0019
  • Born
  • Born
  • brin0019
  • Posts: 3
  • Loc: ottawa - canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks a lot,
I think I am going to try to use knoppix on there computer. They don't use it for much more then the net or to play some games so i think they should be fine.

As for the other reply... I don't use windows and i will not use windows. Any OS that still has problems and vulnerabilities that were in there first release should not be used by anyone. Or when they will have a patch for there patch.

any who

Power to the penguin!!
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

Xandros. looks similar to windows, is easy to install and use, is a linux distro. you can attain it free via a bit torrent
  • EngLee
  • Student
  • Student
  • EngLee
  • Posts: 65

Post 3+ Months Ago

I'm a windows user all the time. I've just tried RedHat 9 and I find it easy to use and configure. :)

http://lifeasprogrammer.blogspot.com/2005/06/redhat-9.html
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

why do people insist on using redhat 9??? whY??


http://fedora.redhat.com

fedora replaced the free version of RedHat.. rh9 isn't supported by redhat. so why use it??


lol </rant> ^_^
  • EngLee
  • Student
  • Student
  • EngLee
  • Posts: 65

Post 3+ Months Ago

Fedora is targeted to personal users. So, I guess the function would be quite limited.

On the other hand, RedHat 9 provides more functions especially if you want to use it for servers and developments.

So, I think I might learn more by installiing and familiarise myself with RedHat.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.. :)
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

have you ever installed fedora? because last time i did, it asked which type of installation i wanted and the types did include servers. the first two were desktop and workstation, but that does not mean those two are all this distro is good for.
  • Daemonguy
  • Moderator
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2700
  • Loc: Somewhere outside the box in Sarasota, FL.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Technically, RedHat 9 was also slated for end users; the Enterprise edition of RedHat is RHEL -- Red Hat Enterprise Level.

The Fedora core is crafted in the same vein as the old RH X series.

However, id Enterprise class linux is your goal, I suggest SLES; in extensive testing we found it to be superior.

SLES is Suse Linux Enterprise Server.

Cheers.
  • EngLee
  • Student
  • Student
  • EngLee
  • Posts: 65

Post 3+ Months Ago

What about other earlier versions of RedHat, like 7.3 and 8.1? Are they more suitable for servers compared to 9.0?

Daemonguy, comparing both (RH9 and Fedora), which one do you prefer?
  • AnarchY SI
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2521
  • Loc: /usr/src/MI

Post 3+ Months Ago

just for reading pleasure.. and a possible resource if you do choose to use RH9: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1562528,00.asp
  • placid psychosis
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 284
  • Loc: Warsaw, IN

Post 3+ Months Ago

Why would you use an older version unless you had specific needs? There are bug and security fixes present in the updated releases. I know some server CP's require specific versions, but they're never more than one major release off the stable branch.

Fedora is the new RedHat. It is used on servers as well as workstations. I myself run Fedora Core 2 on a couple dedicated servers I host. It's just as flexible in that regard as the old RHx releases.

Seriously, unless you have specific needs, don't revert to older versions. Newer ones are released for a reason.
  • Daemonguy
  • Moderator
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2700
  • Loc: Somewhere outside the box in Sarasota, FL.

Post 3+ Months Ago

EngLee wrote:
What about other earlier versions of RedHat, like 7.3 and 8.1? Are they more suitable for servers compared to 9.0?

Daemonguy, comparing both (RH9 and Fedora), which one do you prefer?


I am not certain I would choose either, if I am being honest.

However, if given the choice between the two, I would have to go with Fedora since the codebase is actually updated. RH9 went end of life I believe, some time ago.

The older versions of RH are just that; outdated version of the latest codebase. They contain a wonderful array of old kernels, broken packages and antiquated source -- if you are into such things. Sure the CD will build, but don't try to get the latest version of Tomcat to load. ;) Heh.

In *nix terms, having the latest is usually (Murphy's law not withstanding) a "good thing". That's because in the *nix world, newer version are not released to make money, but to fix problems or improve code. (That's right, pick yourself up off the floor... I will give you a moment. )

<soapbox_rant>
As I have said countless times, the OS you choose should be based entirely upon your application -- note I did not say your applications, to imply software, although that is another important aspect to consider.

You have to use an OS you are familiar with and can tweak (defined as, locking down, improve security and throughput, optimize for networking, etc. et al).
If that means windows, then by all means, continue to use it. While in my technical opinion, *nix servers might be better suited for serving, I make that assertion based upon the fact I know them and have written code for them. I also know windows serving -- though I will deny that in ANY court of law :) , which is also why I can make that statement. Being technically correct though, does you or anyone else no good if Windows is all they know. First and foremost the admins need to be able to, well, administer the box(es).

Having a wonderfully stable and powerful *nix box to run your middleware is useless if you don't know how to run it.

</soapbox_rant>

I will shut up now. ;)

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 15 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.