Quantcast

Linux users

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

kandsrockets

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
I am looking at building a new computer and have thought about making this one a linux machine. I have not used linux in a few years (last version was redhat 7). When I hat RH7 I was running a linux server with 5 linux workstations. I knew enough to be dangerous but not enough to do it for a living. So my question is what version of linux would you recommend. I am looking for one that is easy to use and setup being that this mchine will be used by multi family members. Also this will be on a windows based network.

Thanks
 

troj

Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potent
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
14,265
Reaction score
194
Based on your description of intentions, I'd suggest an off-the-shelf boxed version (SUSE, RedHat, etc).

Why?

Because it comes with easy installations, documentation, and support. They also tend to be more "complete" and will have things that will make it easier for other family members, already included.

If you're interested in the fiddle factor, then consider other distributions.

-Kevin
 

cydermaster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
0
If you're after a free (as in beer) option its worth looking into Ubuntu - the community support for this distro is superb. Its so popular its sometimes referred to as 'Ubiquitu'.
However, as you've already done the Red-Hat thing in the past, you might prefer Fedora (the Red-Hat community distro).

Not sure about Fedora, but Ubuntu does need a little tweaking after installing to get all the necessary codecs etc (Flash/MP3/....) but most of these can be installed with a few clicks.


Now ..... whos going to be the first to mention Slackware ;)
 

stone

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
+1 for ubuntu, it's really nice and got the latest greatest apps. If you want
a rpm based distribution CentOS (a redhat clone) is a good choice. But give
ubuntu a try...
 

MKP

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
200
Reaction score
0
Okay real noob question. How does one get Ubuntu? Is there some sort of disk out there? or can you download it? I got a computer that need to be reformatted, and I don't want to pay out for XP.
 

tbzep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
1
Another Ubuntu user here.

It has a large support base. Kubuntu is an option if you prefer KDE over Gnome. I haven't spent enough time on any other distros to make a comparison, but based on my research, Ubuntu was the choice for me and I've been happy with it so far. Burn the live cd. Boot from it and give it a test ride. You don't need anything installed on the HD, but if you already do, it won't harm it.
 

tbzep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
1
Okay real noob question. How does one get Ubuntu? Is there some sort of disk out there? or can you download it? I got a computer that need to be reformatted, and I don't want to pay out for XP.
Both. You can download an ISO and burn it yourself, or you can purchase a disk. It's a "live cd", meaning you can boot from it and play with it without harming what's already on your computer.

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
 

WiK

Site Admin
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
0
Okay real noob question. How does one get Ubuntu? Is there some sort of disk out there? or can you download it? I got a computer that need to be reformatted, and I don't want to pay out for XP.
You can download a .iso file (for burning to a CD or DVD) here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu

If you don't mind waiting a while, you can also request a free installation CD here: https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

Phil
 

stone

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Okay real noob question. How does one get Ubuntu? Is there some sort of disk out there? or can you download it? I got a computer that need to be reformatted, and I don't want to pay out for XP.
You just download it :)

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

Here is i386 (non-64 version)
http://ubuntu-mirror.cs.colorado.edu/releases/intrepid/ubuntu-8.10-desktop-i386.iso

Then you just boot on the CD and you will get a "linux live"system with an install
icon, click on it and you are on your way to free your computer! :)
 

MKP

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
200
Reaction score
0
Thanks, sounds easy enough. I'm sick of Windoze's stupid idiosyncrasies :mad:
 

lessgravity

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
2
Another vote for Ubuntu here.
I've been switching some Windows users recently that were fed up.
They are all very happy
 

falingtrea

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
798
Reaction score
1
Ubuntu also plays nice in a dual boot setup. We use Windows for our internal IT, but I design embedded systems that use linux. So I have a test bench system that boots to both.
 

marcs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
97
Reaction score
1
Been using Fedora on the desktop for about as long as I can remember, at least 7-8 years. Haven't found the need to check other distros. I imagine most are pretty easy to get installed nowadays.

Marc
 

lessgravity

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
2
Ubuntu also plays nice in a dual boot setup. We use Windows for our internal IT, but I design embedded systems that use linux. So I have a test bench system that boots to both.
Check out installing Ubuntu from within Windows using Wubi - creates a dual boot option and installs Ubuntu as an application in Windows. Great way to keep both OS on same machine if you have the space.

http://wubi-installer.org/
 

Mr Peabody

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Been using Fedora on the desktop for about as long as I can remember, at least 7-8 years. Haven't found the need to check other distros. I imagine most are pretty easy to get installed nowadays.

Marc
Has Fedora (not RedHat) been around for 7-8 years???
 

Rocketeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
I just set up a system with Fedora 10 and I have to admit that I like Fedora 10 less then previous releases and I am more impressed with Ubuntu nowadays.
One catch about Ubuntu though – Your system must be connected to the internet to complete the install. Its released on a CD (as opposed to a DVD) and it downloads most apps. If you are using dial up or want to install on a PC that isn’t online, then it will be easier to use Fedora or another distro. But Fedora is one of the simplest to install.
CentOS is also good, and it’s based upon Red Hat Enterprise. Cent is free and RHE you have to buy, but it also comes with support (which is what you are really paying for)
 

andytherocketeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
Has Fedora (not RedHat) been around for 7-8 years???
FC1 was about 2003-2004 I thought.

I used to use RedHat, then Fedora (up to Fedora 4), but then defected to Ubuntu.
Sure you need to connect to the net to download a load of updates (nothing more than a clean install of XP), but for the average user, almost everything that's needed is on the CD (although some magazine cover CD version's trim out a bit more).
Intrepid Ibex (Ubuntu 8.10 - latest stable version) is the cleanest, quickest install of all the distros I've tried over the years, and so far, no issues.
 

n5wd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
2
... I have not used linux in a few years (last version was redhat 7). ...I knew enough to be dangerous but not enough to do it for a living. So my question is what version of linux would you recommend. I am looking for one that is easy to use and setup being that this machine will be used by multi family members. Also this will be on a windows based network.
Put me into the Ubuntu user's column as well, but instead of taking everyone's word for it, you might consider going down to the local book emporium, or better still, if you have a Half-Priced Book Stores or similar, see if you can pick up one of the texts like "Linux Bible" that have several of the popular distros on DVD and/or CD. The version of the book I've got (the 2007 Edition) had Fedora Core, Ubuntu, KNOPPIX, Debian, SUSE, Damn Small Linux, Slackware, and several other versions that you can try.

And while most of these have online documentation available, sometimes it's handy to have a printed book with an index so you can find things quickly.
 

DexterLB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
571
Reaction score
0
+1 for ubuntu!

It's the easiest to install and the most user-friendly distro of all.

|
|
V
 

kandsrockets

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Okay now that I know what workstation software to go with. This is more for the IT people, what would you recommend for a linux server. The only thing our server is used for anymore is data storage but I have a lot of security rights setup for different users. Right now I am running windows2000 server with a raid 7 cluster of six 80 gig drives. Since this server is almost 7 years old I want to build a new one and will go with a raid setup with only two 500 gig drives. I had RH7 setup as a server before and had mixed feelings with it but then it was also a mixed envirement of windows 2000, xp and linux. I will still have this mix but only with xp and linux. The one that gave me the greats problems was windows 2000.

Thanks for all the help.
 

n5wd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
2
...what would you recommend for a linux server.
Just looked back through the thread and didn't notice anyone mentioning that the basic Ubuntu comes in two different versions... desktop, with the GUI enabled.. and server, without. May be worth a look.
 

Mr Peabody

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Right now I am running windows2000 server with a raid 7 cluster of six 80 gig drives.
RAID 7??? No such animal.

I'm aware of an extension to RAID 5 where dual parity is used, so that you can survive 2 failures (well, a failure during reconstruct - you're an idiot and deserve to lose your data if you take a hit and don't start the reconstruct immediately) that is commonly referred to as RAID 6 even though that was not part of the Berkley RAID paper back in 1988.
 

kandsrockets

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
RAID 7??? No such animal.

I'm aware of an extension to RAID 5 where dual parity is used, so that you can survive 2 failures (well, a failure during reconstruct - you're an idiot and deserve to lose your data if you take a hit and don't start the reconstruct immediately) that is commonly referred to as RAID 6 even though that was not part of the Berkley RAID paper back in 1988.

Well I guess you need to do a little more studing...maybe before you tell someone they are a idiot, you should make sure you are not the idiot first.

Storage Computer Corporation uses RAID 7, which adds caching to RAID 3 and RAID 4 to improve I/O performance.
 
Last edited:

kandsrockets

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Here is little reading for you about Raid 7

"RAID 7 is based on concepts used in RAID levels 3 and 4, but greatly enhanced to address some of the limitations of those levels. Of particular note is the inclusion of a great deal of cache arranged into multiple levels, and a specialized real-time processor for managing the array asynchronously. This hardware support--especially the cache--allow the array to handle many simultaneous operations, greatly improving performance of all sorts while maintaining fault tolerance. In particular, RAID 7 offers much improved random read and write performance over RAID 3 or RAID 4 because the dependence on the dedicated parity disk is greatly reduced through the added hardware."
 

Mr Peabody

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Here is little reading for you about Raid 7

"RAID 7 is based on concepts used in RAID levels 3 and 4, but greatly enhanced to address some of the limitations of those levels. Of particular note is the inclusion of a great deal of cache arranged into multiple levels, and a specialized real-time processor for managing the array asynchronously. This hardware support--especially the cache--allow the array to handle many simultaneous operations, greatly improving performance of all sorts while maintaining fault tolerance. In particular, RAID 7 offers much improved random read and write performance over RAID 3 or RAID 4 because the dependence on the dedicated parity disk is greatly reduced through the added hardware."
Which makes RAID 7 neither RAID 3 nor RAID 4 but just one company's <illegitimate offspring-ized> marketing <male bovine excrement>, and inferior to modern RAID 5 or RAID 6 or RAID 1+0 implementations, all of which now leverage large amounts of cache to improve performance.

I've got the industry standard bible "RAIDbook" sitting right on my desk. It covers RAID 0 through RAID 6. It was given to me by the author and one of the founders of the RAID Advisory Board who is an old friend and colleague from my time in California.

You won't find any papers that describe this unique alleged RAID implementation. I could cobble up something in my basement and market as RAID 42 and it would have just as much legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
Top