StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Work is allegedly swapping over from Irix to a dual Irix/Linux platform ... old computers Irix, new computers Linux (if the physicists get their way ... some jackasses in adminstration want to go "Windows and/or Mac" because of "the benifits of standardization"). I have an old copy of Unix which worked for most of the stuff from work and it is a dual boot on my laptop.

Now I'm not great with computers (as in I know how to do what I do on a fairly regular basis, but I don't speak the jaron fluently), and the last time I tried to get the damn thing to accept dual boot I blew 12 hours and ended up bribing a friend with free pizza to set it up for me. This time it looks like I'll have to do it myself.

Where can I get a free or VERY cheap Linux OS that is EASY (as in thou needest not be a Linux guru to get it up and running) to set up as an alternate boot? I do not need bell's and whistles ... this is a Pentium I laptop I use because I like to have a mobile computer and don't feel like buying a newer one. I just want to be able to easily connect to work (both on site and remote login), swap files, and maybe run a few new apps (this is not that big unless there is a killer app that is OS specific) ... without taking up huge amounts of drive space.

I have zero experience with Linux, but a little with Unix.

All of the major vendors (SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat) have free downloadable versions. Some might object (Shep, who had all kinds of problems I've never seen before), but I still think Mandrake is the easiest to install and use. If you have some *nix knowledge, it's just a bit of a tweak to think Linux (system files are stored in different places or under different names, different configuration tools are used, etc). The transition is no worse than moving from Solaris to HP-UX or Irix.

Darth Wong wrote:(Shep, who had all kinds of problems I've never seen before)

How do you access the config program at boot? I think I've traced my problem
to it thinking that one of my CDROMs is a SCSI one wehn it's really IDE.

Mandrake is probably the easiest to setup but the default install in the current version is probably too heavyweight to run well on an original Pentium. You'll likely need to do without KDE or GNome and use one of the more lightweight window managers if you want performance that can be described as anything but glacial.

You can download the Mandrake ISOs free from the Mandrake website.

I installed Mandrake 8.2 on a my Thinkpad 600E. It is a dual boot system with Win2k as my primary OS.

The install was really easy, just one snag when I started in the beginning. I tried to mount Linux on a FAT32 partition and that didnt seem to work.

Im just starting with Linux myself, so this is a newbie opinion.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I tried to mount Linux on a FAT32 partition and that didnt seem to work.

Don't do that. Linux doesn't like FAT32 very much as the former requires file permissions and the latter doesn't support them.

You can mount (i.e. access) FAT32 from Linux, however. Just don't try to install Linux on a FAT32 partition.

why did you go and tell him that??? It ws funny reading.

OH well who cares. Go get yourself windows. It will save you and the pyshists headaches. I can't think of one reason someone would want to use linux as a desktop (aside from cost)

Consesus seems to be Mandrake ... I'll give that a try this week.

OH well who cares. Go get yourself windows. It will save you and the pyshists headaches. I can't think of one reason someone would want to use linux as a desktop (aside from cost)
The physcisists do high end computing, as in computers that cost more than my car, windohs apparently does not handle large data sets well. I would like to be able to be able to easily swap from my laptop to the network at work ... hence why I'd like to make an alternate boot.

I wouldn't say that. They hve versions of windows that can scale enterprise. Linux can't scale any further up than windows can. It simply doesn;t have the support. Besides things are scaling outwards not upwards. Its really depends on the program these days, and how well its made. distributed computing is a quite efective answer to mainframes, and its more fault tolerant. Look at Beawulf. Linux is meant for that sort of stuff.

Azeron wrote:I wouldn't say that. They hve versions of windows that can scale enterprise.

Yes, for the low low price of >$1k to start, and more (potentially a lot more) if you want to actually do anything.

Linux can't scale any further up than windows can.

Stock Windows is limited to 10 TCP/IP connections and has no server capabilities. That's hardly scalable. You're thinking of companies that have lots of resources; not every company shrugs off many thousands of dollars in software costs, particularly when there's no clear benefit and they'll find themselves locked into a mandatory upgrade cycle to satisfy Microsoft's stockholders (notice how M$ cuts off support for older platforms, including security updates in many cases; see how massive Office97 security holes are going unpatched because they "recommend" that users upgrade to Office XP).

It simply doesn;t have the support. Besides things are scaling outwards not upwards. Its really depends on the program these days, and how well its made. distributed computing is a quite efective answer to mainframes, and its more fault tolerant. Look at Beawulf. Linux is meant for that sort of stuff.

True. But that doesn't mean it has no place on the desktop. If you play a lot of games or do heavy multimedia work, I will concede that Linux is inferior to Windows (hence most Linux users still dual-boot to Win98 or Win2k). But if you just want to do Internet activities and basic office activities, Linux gets the job done, and without data format lock-in, user lock-in, exorbitant pricing, skyrocketing resource requirements, or all of the client-side security issues that plague Windows users.

Darth Wong wrote:Linux can't scale any further up than windows can.
Stock Windows is limited to 10 TCP/IP connections and has no server capabilities. That's hardly scalable.

The workstation versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP include IIS, which is limited to 10 inbound TCP/IP connections at once. However, you can use another server (ie Apache) if you choose.

phongn wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Linux can't scale any further up than windows can.
Stock Windows is limited to 10 TCP/IP connections and has no server capabilities. That's hardly scalable.

The workstation versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP include IIS, which is limited to 10 inbound TCP/IP connections at once. However, you can use another server (ie Apache) if you choose.

I believe there's also a licensing requirement buried in the EULA, adding a LEGAL restriction to just 10 TCP/IP connections. I know that this was the case for NT4 (it was their way of "discouraging" the use of the workstation version as a server), and I would be surprised if the same language is not in the Win2k and WinXP EULA's.

tharkûn wrote:The physcisists do high end computing, as in computers that cost more than my car, windohs apparently does not handle large data sets well. I would like to be able to be able to easily swap from my laptop to the network at work ... hence why I'd like to make an alternate boot.

Right now, x86 (ie IA32) cannot handle physical RAM sizes of greater than a few GB. That makes Windows not so useful for the scientific market. When Windows XP64 is released (which will run under IA64 and x86-64) it'll even up the competition a little bit.

Darth Wong wrote:

phongn wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Linux can't scale any further up than windows can.
Stock Windows is limited to 10 TCP/IP connections and has no server capabilities. That's hardly scalable.

The workstation versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP include IIS, which is limited to 10 inbound TCP/IP connections at once. However, you can use another server (ie Apache) if you choose.

I believe there's also a licensing requirement buried in the EULA, adding a LEGAL restriction to just 10 TCP/IP connections. I know that this was the case for NT4 (it was their way of "discouraging" the use of the workstation version as a server), and I would be surprised if the same language is not in the Win2k and WinXP EULA's.

::looks in EULA::

You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services).

I think this specifically refers to the built-in services included in Windows XP Professional rather than in a general sense. The language seems a bit too specific.

Thats for domains and other crap that wouldn't apply in this case. Just socket connections made by a program not written by windows.

IIS/apache thing, isn't really the same thing. We are talking about different technology. 10 concurrent users for a non session driven web application is more than enough for most users. compared to the cost of a computer, the windows license for a site run by IIS that can handle more than 10 connections, and need it is not really an issue. the cost per page served is not much differnt. Besides you wouldn't use apache (well in a while you will) for a site that needed to handle more than 10 concurrent users. apache just doesn't scale very well (for now, the 2.0 branch is still under refinement). Really the bet is, whether more than 10 users will access your sie within 10 miliseconds, on a frequent basis. But me being cheap, would probably max it out to 30 -50....but it had better be a good machine not doing anything else.

I use apache, and would never use IIS in the first place, so don't take it like I am pro-IIS. a good unix admin more than tips the cost scale in favour of windows. Windows admins are a dime a dozen for a good one. Unix starts at something like 70k and then you have fringe benefits. Free? Yah right, nothing is free.

As for RAM, thats an addressing problem. If the processor is 64 bits or more, it can handle more than 4 GBs of ram, if it is only 32 bit than its only 4 gbs of ram. its a physical problem relating to the hardware, not the software. You can get a copy of win2k advanced server 64 right now.

To tell you the truth, I like linux. But the gui is a bit unstable, and I have needs just like everyone else. I just want to have something that works as my main workstation with lots of different stuff. granted its got properitory file formats and stuff like that, but tons of companies do that, not just M$, even on linux.

Darth Wong wrote: skyrocketing resource requirements,

Tell me what you're smoking. Windows 98SE boots up faster, and runs faster
than Mandrake on my Pentium II 450......

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: skyrocketing resource requirements,

Tell me what you're smoking. Windows 98SE boots up faster, and runs faster
than Mandrake on my Pentium II 450......

Boot time doesn't mean anything. Windows XP boots faster on my P3/650 laptop than Windows 2000 on one of our P3/800 boxes (with more RAM), but has greater overhead. And both boot faster than Windows NT4, which took up even less.

phongn wrote: Boot time doesn't mean anything. Windows XP boots faster on my P3/650 laptop than Windows 2000 on one of our P3/800 boxes (with more RAM), but has greater overhead. And both boot faster than Windows NT4, which took up even less.

Mandrake runs like a stuck pig on my PII 450, with it's crappy "web view"
folders, which interestingly enough, you can disable in Win98SE.....

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: skyrocketing resource requirements,

Tell me what you're smoking. Windows 98SE boots up faster, and runs faster
than Mandrake on my Pentium II 450......

Turn off "quiet" in your lilo.conf boot options. Watch how many network services it starts up. Then look at how many network services a stock Win98 install will start up: zero. Comparing boot times for a full server-capable networked operating system compared to a network client-only operatig system is a bit like comparing the operating overhead of General Motors to that of a variety store. Linux boots up very quickly if you turn off all of the network services. Conversely, if you were to load up Windows with all of the daemons and other services that come standard with a typical UNIX OS, it would take FOREVER to boot (and it does; I've experienced this).

MKSheppard wrote:Mandrake runs like a stuck pig on my PII 450, with it's crappy "web view" folders, which interestingly enough, you can disable in Win98SE.....

Win98SE is a fairly lightweight operating system. It doesn't do much, so it doesn't have a lot of overhead. Compare a Linux install to Win2k Server with all of the fixings if you want to compare apples to apples. Besides, I was talking about the skyrocketing resource requirements with each NEW VERSION. The last time I checked, Win98SE was released 4-5 years ago and is two generations out of date. That hardly disproves the point about skyrocketing resource requirements with new versions. Your 450 would have been considered a blazing racehorse at the time Win98SE was written.

Darth Wong wrote: Turn off "quiet" in your lilo.conf boot options. Watch how many network services it starts up. Then look at how many network services a stock Win98 install will start up: zero. Comparing boot times for a full server-capable networked operating system compared to a network client-only operatig system is a bit like comparing the operating overhead of General Motors to that of a variety store. Linux boots up very quickly if you turn off all of the network services. Conversely, if you were to load up Windows with all of the daemons and other services that come standard with a typical UNIX OS, it would take FOREVER to boot (and it does; I've experienced this).

OK, interesting....how do I access the boot-up hardware config manager
for Mandrake? I know it's there cuz I've used it a few times, but I think
have my boot problem for Mandrake nailed down to it's refusal to recognize
a IDE CD-ROM for what it is.....it keeps thinking it's a SCSI drive....

MKSheppard wrote:

phongn wrote: Boot time doesn't mean anything. Windows XP boots faster on my P3/650 laptop than Windows 2000 on one of our P3/800 boxes (with more RAM), but has greater overhead. And both boot faster than Windows NT4, which took up even less.

Mandrake runs like a stuck pig on my PII 450, with it's crappy "web view"
folders, which interestingly enough, you can disable in Win98SE.....

You aren't really disabling them, Shep - Windows simply makes it work like the Windows 95-era Explorer rather than the ActiveDesktop style Explorer.

MKSheppard wrote:OK, interesting....how do I access the boot-up hardware config manager for Mandrake? I know it's there cuz I've used it a few times, but I think have my boot problem for Mandrake nailed down to it's refusal to recognize a IDE CD-ROM for what it is.....it keeps thinking it's a SCSI drive....

The Mandrake Control Center takes care of that (just remove the "quiet" parameter from the boot options; do NOT fuck around with any of the other options!). As for your boot problem, open up a command window. Now, type "ls -l /dev/cdrom". If it links to "hdc" (or something else starting with h), it's recognizing it as IDE. If it links to "sdc" (or something else starting with s), it's recognizing it as SCSI.

What exactly was the boot problem, again? It DOES boot, right?

BTW, word of advice: use Mandrake Control Center to shut down all of the startup services that you don't need. I'm not sure what's running automatically on your machine, but you can probably disable all kinds of things, like Apache, NFS, PostgreSQL and MySQL, autofs, xinetd, webmin, etc. A lot of startup services are unnecessary for a single-user client workstation (well, I use a lot of them, but I'm not normal). Look at the description beside each service; it will give you a good idea of whether it's really necessary.

yah the control center keeps everything under watch.

Mandrake is the best distro for ease of use.

I have been using OS 9.2, for a week now, and I wish I had windows 95. that operating system is so much better than this piece of garbage. Static allocation of Ram? what a load of BS. How could anyone justify something like that. Add a component to IE and you have to reconfig its memory requirements, regarldess if you are going to use the component.

how could apple survive so long. I would take win 98 over this any day. its freaking 2x as stable amd less fewer issues. And I hated win98. I will never say anything bad about windows again.

This thing is worlds apart from the OS 10. like someone bothered to write a good operating system that time.