Preserved Topic: Linux (Page 1 of 1)

I am looking to install Linux as a partition on my current hard drive that is currently running Win 2k. I have been told about that Linux is an extreemly fast opperating system, that is very stable. If this proves true I may want to get away from the Win oporating system and totally replace it, in place of a linux system. The system that I am looking to install is the Red Hat 7.0 .

Now there are a couple of issues that I want to be sure of before I even broach the topic.

I know that I can easily set up a php/perl/mysql/apache solution that would work with the Linux opperating system.

But for web and application developement I will need to be able to have a C++ compiler, a Java Compiler (JDK) as well as a graphical application that would work well with Linux.

I don't know much about linux, but I am sure that it will be an oporating system that would be a good thing for me to learn especially because I am a hard core back end coder. Any information that anyone can supply to me would be appreciated.

no linux photoshop, well, considering linux isent win, i dont think C++ will even work on linux, but i dont know about a complier, i dont think it would be worth the effort. IMO

You can set up a php/perl/mysql/apache on a win 98 machine as well,

there's a linux GNU C++ compiler. Search the net.

Personally, for business use I suggest staying away from Linux. Theres just too many things that aren't compatable with it. Theres software similar to Photoshop but not Photoshop. I personally don't see the point in using it for your main OS. I find Windows works fine for me. Theres just too much work with Linux ...

Linux is good, overall. if you ever get linux, dont' get redhat, get mandrake, www.mandrake.com, they mimic redhat's linux sytle such as (RPMS), but they have a a veriosn 7.2, and redhat only has upto v7.0. Also, mandrake is more user-friendly, I tried both, Mandrake supports more devices then redhat, because it's newer, 7.0 vs 7.2.

do NOT keep linux and abandon linux, it's good for being server and play with the terminals to improve your Unix skill, but it's not good in terms of productive, the way it runs is just not as smooth as windows, so i strongly recommand you get have 2 operating systems if you have 8gb+ harddrive. if you have 6gb, you still can do it, assign 4GB for windows2000 partition and 2GB for linux.

Both linux and windows2000 are designed to be easily dual-bootable, and they both have their own bootloaders.

when you install linux, you can customize the installation, and a C/C++ compile will be there waiting for you.

I have mandrake 7.2, perl/mysql/apache ... are preinstalled, how nice.

remember, don't abanddon windows for linux.

I have windowsME, windows 2000 and linux on the same machine, and I've just been got through the headache of setting up 3 os on the same machine, and want to share the experience with you.

1 more thing to add, if you can get PowerQuest's Partition6 ( below 6 don't have support for windows2000), it can help you partitioning, but it's no big deal, you can still live with linux's and win2k's partitioners. and if you do get 2 OSes, install win2k before linux, other wise, you have to go through the headache of configurating Linux's bootloader to make win2k visible to it.

I'm pretty sure most distro's come with the jdk, if not you can easily get it from sun, also every distro will have a C++ compiler.

You need a graphical application that works well with linux? Uh, freecell, quake3, or xmms? Since you said it in the same sentance as a you mentioned some code stuff, I'm lead to believe you mean IDE, which linux has, but they all suck, easier to just use fte to edit and the shell to compile.

Also, galaxal is giving out some horribly wrong information here, mandrake 7.2 has nothing to do with redhat 7.0. They are completely different companies, and those numbers reffer to their individual version system, for instance slackware was at version 4 before it went to version 7(which was to basically so their version number matched redhat's and others). Both redhat and mandrake are excellent choices in a distro, i use slackware and redhat at home, and i find slackware works better for server applications.

Thanks for the information.

I feel a general concensus that I should not switch to a solely linux system?

If I were to set up linux, could I set it up to be a solely command line interface, forgetting the GUI? I am sure that the speed would increase if I left behind the GUI.

Hey, here's some more information for you. At work we decided that we are going to need to do image manipulation "on the fly" off of our unix server, so we downloaded the full GIMP package from GNU, it was a monstrous big download, but!

MAN! Was this an awwesome package, with freeware alternatives to *every* photoshop filter, including Lighting Effects, it was a trip and a half, let me tell you. I was totally impressed with what has happened to the little old gimp I used to know, it's been hanging at the gym, taking steroids, and being bitten by radioactive spiders, woo!

Still, it was cool, but it wasn't photoshop. I also didn't get to really play with everything, do the filters work as well as the photoshop equivalents? Hard to say. Still, it looks like a good app to play around with IMHO.

Your pal, -doc-

You can set up linux without the GUI, however the speed increase you will get is mainly going to be from the ram any of the window managers uses, not the processor(unless you got some ghetto tech like 486). Also the odds of you maxing out a linux box with apache alone are pretty slim to nill, a 486 can saturate a t1, its all about the ram and the hd. However, if you doing a lot of compiling a good processor is a must....

Heres what you do, you go out and buy an old pentium II or pentium or some shit(like your brothers compaq, which is what i did), strip everything out, and leave in 128megs ram, and a 40 gig hard drive, throw up web configuration, apache, ftp, mp3 streaming server with web interface for switching the playlist, nic card, get a switch, and there you have it, a beautiful, stable, fast, cross-platform multimedia maniac that devours everything you throw at it, all for like 400 bucks(YMMV). Also you can host an internet porn sight, make bank, and tell everyone you are 1337 cause you can hack root @ 127.0.0.1

Oh yeah, get a switch and put up a firewall and ip masquerading(nat, whatever) on your box, and you also have a beautiful multipurpose security tool, router, and counter-strike server for all those lan games you have to have.

opticburn, signing off to go pass out or hit my head on the door frame, whichever impedes consciensence first

Yeah, that is why I was looking into Linux. Look at all the power

my info maybe wrong, but it doesn't matter that much, I still recommand you mandrake if you want linux.

I have Slackware 7, and having gone through (some of) the install, let me tell you that you will need the manuals for pretty much every part of your comp to set it up optimally, and if you have some obscure and/or shitty hardware like my soundcard you will prolly not be able to use it unless you know all of its opcodes and are willing to code a driver for it. The place I got my computer gave me a really good price, and I customised it to be the ebst thing I could get for under $1000 CDN (AMD Athlon@600, 64MB, 30GB, 17"monitor, 8xDVD-ROM + crap videocard + crap soundcard) but the bastards DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY MANUALS FOR THE PARTS!

----

So part number won't cut it for the installation?

I heard the newer versions had some newer hardware detection protocalls, as well as a ton of drivers for the different parts.