Very Computer

by **Raymond Le** » Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Hi,
Someone told me I could get Linux for $5 of the internet. But when I went
to CheapBytes I was met with surprise (which later bubbled and melted into
confusion) to find so many distributions of LINUX and so many combinations
of distributions of LINUX.

Can anyone tell me the difference between the Red Hat 5.0 LINUX that they
sell for $1.99 and the "Official Intel Red Hat 5.0 LINUX Release" they sell
for about $30? Will I be missing anything (besides the manual, tech
support, and 2 boot diskettes) if I just go for the $1.99 CD?

What is the difference between Slackware, Red Hat, and FreeBSD? I just
heard that some were easier to install than others. I expect to get the
CD's soon but now I can't decide on which one to install. I'm afraid if I
install one I won't be able to take advantage of what the others have to
offer. And IF I install Red Hat will I be able to run Slackware
applications?

Thanks in advance.
Raymond

(One last thing. How is LINUX pronounced? Is it Lie-nex or Lin-nicks?)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Where there's a mountain, there must be
a mole hill under there somewhere.
--John Hammontree of Big Sur

by **David Griffi** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

: Hi,
: Someone told me I could get Linux for $5 of the internet. But when I went
: to CheapBytes I was met with surprise (which later bubbled and melted into
: confusion) to find so many distributions of LINUX and so many combinations
: of distributions of LINUX.

: Can anyone tell me the difference between the Red Hat 5.0 LINUX that they
: sell for $1.99 and the "Official Intel Red Hat 5.0 LINUX Release" they sell
: for about $30? Will I be missing anything (besides the manual, tech
: support, and 2 boot diskettes) if I just go for the $1.99 CD?

You also forego a commercial X server which may work better if you have an
odd bleeding-edge video card. You also get BRU, an excellent backup
utility.

: What is the difference between Slackware, Red Hat, and FreeBSD? I just
: heard that some were easier to install than others. I expect to get the
: CD's soon but now I can't decide on which one to install. I'm afraid if I
: install one I won't be able to take advantage of what the others have to
: offer. And IF I install Red Hat will I be able to run Slackware
: applications?

Slackware and Redhat differ mainly in how they're configured, upgraded,
and maintained. Some of the system config files are in slightly different
locations. FreeBSD more closely resembles Slackware than Redhat. Or
should I say, "Slackware resembles FreeBSD."? The BSD operating systems
tend to be a harder to install than Linux. They're lacking in the pizazz
of Linux, but they tend to be quite secure and stable.

There are no "slackware apps" or "redhat apps". If it runs on Linux,
it'll work.

: Thanks in advance.
: Raymond

: (One last thing. How is LINUX pronounced? Is it Lie-nex or Lin-nicks?)

There's an .au file found nearby www.linux.org of Linus saying "Helloo,
this is Leesoose Torvalds and I pronounce Leenoocks as Leenoocks.".

--
David Griffith

by **Roy Stogn** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>Someone told me I could get Linux for $5 of the internet. But when I went
>to CheapBytes I was met with surprise (which later bubbled and melted into
>confusion) to find so many distributions of LINUX and so many combinations
>of distributions of LINUX.

Yup! Linux users generally like "freedom of choice"... a LOT. If one
distribution starts falling behind, or one distribution gets too
commercial, or... well, anyway there's lots of backups.

Quote:>Can anyone tell me the difference between the Red Hat 5.0 LINUX that they
>sell for $1.99 and the "Official Intel Red Hat 5.0 LINUX Release" they sell
>for about $30? Will I be missing anything (besides the manual, tech
>support, and 2 boot diskettes) if I just go for the $1.99 CD?

Yes:
1. Don't discount that manual yet. If this is your first time
installing Linux, you're going to want either a manual, a printout of
that manual (expensive itself), or a second computer nearby to access
that manual on the web.

2. Red Hat has commercial softare:
a. MetroX - a good buy once, maybe, but XFree86 is getting quite a
bit better, and is often what you want to install even if you have
both.
b. BRU - a commercial backup program... but I wouldn't use it.
tar, crontab, and their kin may be harder to learn than some cute
GUI commercial program... but they are just as versatile for
backups, can be used for dozens of other purposes as well, and
will be on every Unix you ever use.
c. Real Audio player and server... but the player is available for
free, and you probably won't be using the server.

I bought the commercial Red Hat myself, but just as much to say "thank
you" to the company as to take advantage of the extras.

Quote:>What is the difference between Slackware, Red Hat, and FreeBSD?

Slackware is an older Linux distribution, initially a favorite but
lagging behind Red Hat at the moment. They do have the dubious
advantage that configuration is done by hand-editing the files, so
you'll learn more with Slackware.

FreeBSD is a different, binary-incompatible version of i386 free unix.

Quote:>I just heard that some were easier to install than others. I expect
>to get the CD's soon but now I can't decide on which one to install.

Red Hat is reputed to be easier to install... but if you get RH 5, be
aware that it is the first Linux distribution to make a major upgrade,
and there are weeks of fixes at http://www.redhat.com/errata for
problems with that upgrade. New Red Hat CDs will have most of those
fixes already in place, but you'll want to drop by the page and check
to be certain.

Quote:>I'm afraid if I install one I won't be able to take advantage of what
>the others have to offer. And IF I install Red Hat will I be able to
>run Slackware applications?

Don't be afraid - any Linux distribution will be able to run the
programs of any of the others, usually by just dropping the program in
and running it. With Red Hat 5, you'll need to make sure the errata
fixes are installed to run some old programs, and you'll want to
recompile programs from other distributions for a slight performance
increase.

The only major differences between the distributions are in
installation, upgrading, and configuration.
---
Roy Stogner

by **felicity+s..** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> b. BRU - a commercial backup program... but I wouldn't use it.
> tar, crontab, and their kin may be harder to learn than some cute
> GUI commercial program... but they are just as versatile for
> backups, can be used for dozens of other purposes as well, and
> will be on every Unix you ever use.

you can use the GUI, but bru itself (the gui is a layer which calls the bru
program) is a direct replacement for tar. it fixes various problems that tar
has (limited path length, very * error handling, etc.)

Quote:> Slackware is an older Linux distribution, initially a favorite but
> lagging behind Red Hat at the moment. They do have the dubious

lagging? how so? Slackware doesn't have glibc as standard, that's about it.

Quote:> Don't be afraid - any Linux distribution will be able to run the
> programs of any of the others, usually by just dropping the program in
> and running it. With Red Hat 5, you'll need to make sure the errata

a current problem, however, is that there is no standard format for software
distribution which makes everyone happy. If you run a distribution without
RPM support (for instance), you can't easily get at the files in the archive.
(you have to get a non-distribution distributed program to handle it.) The
"standard" format is a tarball (tar/gzip), but it is not used by some of the
linux software creators.

by **Barry O'Nei** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Quote:> Hi,
> Someone told me I could get Linux for $5 of the internet. But when I went
> to CheapBytes I was met with surprise (which later bubbled and melted into
> confusion) to find so many distributions of LINUX and so many combinations
> of distributions of LINUX.

> Can anyone tell me the difference between the Red Hat 5.0 LINUX that they
> sell for $1.99 and the "Official Intel Red Hat 5.0 LINUX Release" they sell
> for about $30? Will I be missing anything (besides the manual, tech
> support, and 2 boot diskettes) if I just go for the $1.99 CD?

> What is the difference between Slackware, Red Hat, and FreeBSD? I just
> heard that some were easier to install than others. I expect to get the
> CD's soon but now I can't decide on which one to install. I'm afraid if I
> install one I won't be able to take advantage of what the others have to
> offer. And IF I install Red Hat will I be able to run Slackware
> applications?

Get the lot. Install them all, several times. Poke 'em, prod 'em, beat
'em with a stick. Read everything, then read it again. Then read some
more. Ask for help on Usenet. Don't worry about which is "best" or what
you might be "missing".

Make your own decisions.

Quote:> (One last thing. How is LINUX pronounced? Is it Lie-nex or Lin-nicks?)

How important is that to you?

regards,

Barry
--
"Humour is *such* a subjective thing, don't you think Mollari?" - Emperor
Cartagia, Babylon 5

by **Frank Mil** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>> b. BRU - a commercial backup program... but I wouldn't use it.
>> tar, crontab, and their kin may be harder to learn than some cute
>> GUI commercial program... but they are just as versatile for
>> backups, can be used for dozens of other purposes as well, and
>> will be on every Unix you ever use.

>you can use the GUI, but bru itself (the gui is a layer which calls the bru
>program) is a direct replacement for tar. it fixes various problems that tar
>has (limited path length, very * error handling, etc.)

The BRU page claims that they have better error detection and recovery than
tar. No comparisons have been made to 'afio' (or one of its possible
callers, 'tob'). Has anyone done any comparison with 'afio'?

-frank

by **Clyde Ricke** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> >> b. BRU - a commercial backup program... but I wouldn't use it.
> >> tar, crontab, and their kin may be harder to learn than some cute
> >> GUI commercial program... but they are just as versatile for
> >> backups, can be used for dozens of other purposes as well, and
> >> will be on every Unix you ever use.

> >you can use the GUI, but bru itself (the gui is a layer which calls the bru
> >program) is a direct replacement for tar. it fixes various problems that tar
> >has (limited path length, very * error handling, etc.)

Our military customer insisted on bru over tar for some reason I've
forgotten. (I can't imagine why, but I think it was claimed to have
something to do with security.) It at least allows long filenames.

I just got it with RH5 and found the documentation (a man page) poor,
with several disagreements with the program. A couple nice options
where missing which was not said to be missing from this "PE" version.
The compression option gives me fatal errors. (It's hard to believe
they'd release it that broken, so maybe my upgrade didn't work as
well as it otherwise seems to have worked.) The xbru program had
only on-line documentation. That program allows some button-pushing
configuration, but then crashed when I tried to do the actual backup.
Again, I assume there must be something wrong with my setup. I
downloaded "free" xbru from their site, thinking I'd get a bug fix,
but it requires entry of bru's serial number which Red Hat doesn't
provide! Oh well. I've used the RH5 bru for basic backup now a
few times and am very pleased with the features that work.

by **Ken** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> > b. BRU - a commercial backup program... but I wouldn't use it.
> > tar, crontab, and their kin may be harder to learn than some cute
> > GUI commercial program... but they are just as versatile for
> > backups, can be used for dozens of other purposes as well, and
> > will be on every Unix you ever use.

> you can use the GUI, but bru itself (the gui is a layer which calls the bru
> program) is a direct replacement for tar. it fixes various problems that tar
> has (limited path length, very * error handling, etc.)

> > Slackware is an older Linux distribution, initially a favorite but
> > lagging behind Red Hat at the moment. They do have the dubious

> lagging? how so? Slackware doesn't have glibc as standard, that's about it.

> > Don't be afraid - any Linux distribution will be able to run the
> > programs of any of the others, usually by just dropping the program in
> > and running it. With Red Hat 5, you'll need to make sure the errata

> a current problem, however, is that there is no standard format for software
> distribution which makes everyone happy. If you run a distribution without
> RPM support (for instance), you can't easily get at the files in the archive.
> (you have to get a non-distribution distributed program to handle it.) The
> "standard" format is a tarball (tar/gzip), but it is not used by some of the
> linux software creators.

Well you can down load RPM in a .tar.gz format, install it, and then use it to
install any RPMs that you want. I have installed RPM in slackware and it works
fine. (I got the source distribution and compiled it under slackware.)

by **Ian R. Ha** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> Red Hat is reputed to be easier to install... but if you get RH 5, be
> aware that it is the first Linux distribution to make a major upgrade,
> and there are weeks of fixes at http://www.redhat.com/errata for
> problems with that upgrade. New Red Hat CDs will have most of those
> fixes already in place, but you'll want to drop by the page and check
> to be certain.

Quick question from a tempted non-user: Is there (a) an external way of
telling if the CD from Red Hat is new enough to have the patches in
place and (b) an easy way of telling once the box is open and the OS
installed?

Thanks - ian.
--
----------------------------------------------------

Toronto, Canada http://www3.sympatico.ca/ian.hay/
----------------------------------------------------

by **Scott Maxwel** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> a current problem, however, is that there is no standard format for software
> distribution which makes everyone happy. If you run a distribution without
> RPM support (for instance), you can't easily get at the files in the archive.
> (you have to get a non-distribution distributed program to handle it.) The

I guess this is factually correct, but I don't think it's as bad as
you seem to think:

rpm2cpio your-rpm-file.rpm | cpio -i

This is no worse than distributing files in an unusual compression
format, and it has many advantages.

-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
R H L U Scott Maxwell: | ``What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of

D T N ! pacbell.net | heads against?'' -- Larry Wall

by **Roy Stogne** » Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> > Red Hat is reputed to be easier to install... but if you get RH 5, be
> > aware that it is the first Linux distribution to make a major upgrade,
> > and there are weeks of fixes at http://www.redhat.com/errata for
> > problems with that upgrade. New Red Hat CDs will have most of those
> > fixes already in place, but you'll want to drop by the page and check
> > to be certain.

> Quick question from a tempted non-user: Is there (a) an external way of
> telling if the CD from Red Hat is new enough to have the patches in
> place and (b) an easy way of telling once the box is open and the OS
> installed?

a. Not to my knowledge. However, my official Red Hat copy (bought from
www.lsl.com the first week of January) had most of the patches
installed already; I'm sure anything newer would.

b. An easy way, yes; not necessarily a quick way. You can tell what
version a Red Hat package is at with rpm -q package name (q = query),
and simply compare version numbers with the errata on Red Hat's site.
---
Roy Stogner

by **Eze Ogwum** » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> Our military customer insisted on bru over tar for some reason I've
> forgotten. (I can't imagine why, but I think it was claimed to have
> something to do with security.) It at least allows long filenames.

Bru does a great deal of error checking, in addition it can read past
errors on an archive tape. Tar will usually exit.

Quote:> I just got it with RH5 and found the documentation (a man page) poor,

There's a huge manual on the Estinc web site.

Quote:> with several disagreements with the program. A couple nice options
> where missing which was not said to be missing from this "PE" version.
> The compression option gives me fatal errors. (It's hard to believe
> they'd release it that broken, so maybe my upgrade didn't work as
> well as it otherwise seems to have worked.)

The RPM released with RH 5.0 did not have correct checksums for all
the files. Get the rhmasked replacement from the RH ftp site.

--
Eze Ogwuma

by **Eze Ogwum** » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> > > Red Hat is reputed to be easier to install... but if you get RH 5, be
> > > aware that it is the first Linux distribution to make a major upgrade,
> > > and there are weeks of fixes at http://www.redhat.com/errata for
> > > problems with that upgrade. New Red Hat CDs will have most of those
> > > fixes already in place, but you'll want to drop by the page and check
> > > to be certain.

> > Quick question from a tempted non-user: Is there (a) an external way of
> > telling if the CD from Red Hat is new enough to have the patches in
> > place and (b) an easy way of telling once the box is open and the OS
> > installed?

> a. Not to my knowledge. However, my official Red Hat copy (bought from
> www.lsl.com the first week of January) had most of the patches
> installed already; I'm sure anything newer would.

> b. An easy way, yes; not necessarily a quick way. You can tell what
> version a Red Hat package is at with rpm -q package name (q = query),
> and simply compare version numbers with the errata on Red Hat's site.

There was quite a discussion about this on the Hurricane list a while
back. I think that what people wanted was an increment of a minor
version number for each cut (e.g. 5.0.1) and a way of installing a
"vanilla" system.

--
Eze Ogwuma

by **jik** » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00

FreeBSD more closely resembles Slackware than Redhat. Or

Quote:>should I say, "Slackware resembles FreeBSD."? The BSD operating systems
>tend to be a harder to install than Linux.

Huh? FreeBSD is an entirely different Unix.
Actually FreeBSD is not too hard to install, but it will not leave your MBR
allone even if you tell it to..if you tell it to leave it allone, it just
deletes it and doesn't replace it with anything.
The other *BSDs are very difficult to install because of the fdisk program.
You need to be like an expert or something.

About the difference between RedHat and Slackware, thats opinion really.
I am under the opinion that RedHat is too damn huge and not as user friendly as
its led to be. The install program is not as nice as Slackware's, the control
panel only works for so many things...if yours is different then you have to go
deap and edit anyway.
Maybe it is just that I started in Slackware, but RedHat doesn't seem to be
anything special.
Slackware is also takes 1/2 the time to download.

I will always recomend Slackware over the other three simply because I liked it
best, and I tried the others.

by **James Youngma** » Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Eze> Bru does a great deal of error checking, in addition it can
Eze> read past errors on an archive tape. Tar will usually exit.

--ignore-failed-read fixes that.

Very Computer

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat

"Official" Red Hat vs. Red Hat