My Linux system was based on RH5.1. I decided to go for 6.1, since a
lot has happened over the past couple of years and it is only GBP2
from the Linux Emporium. Although a new user to Linux, I was deeply
involved with Unix many years ago.
First, the default graphic install did not work, and I had a
non-trivial time getting X to run on my IBM ThinkPad 760. Strange,
because 5.1 ran "out of the box". Luckily, I first got X up and
running about 11 years ago, so I am used to this sort of thing.
Next thing to note. If you are thinking about using their "upgrade"
install, my advice is to forget it. The main failing is that it looks
for free disc space in a dumb sort of way. Unless it can install all
of its packages as if none had been installed before, it will bomb
out. It does not realise that some (many?) files will be over-written,
so the disc space required might be much less. Worse, you cannot
override its decision and say "Well, try it anyway!"
Then, the customised install profiles ("KDE Workstation", etc.) are
100% non-configuable. Not only was I not asked which packages to
install, I was not even asked about which HDD I wanted to install on,
nor where lilo should go. Win NT users BEWARE!!!
Now why don't they install the K stuff in /opt/kde. That's where every
other 3-rd party kde RPM will try to install to. I've set up a soft
link (an enanthema to an old Unix mind!) to try to sort the problem,
but this could really mess up a new user's day!
The warning is that my 5.1 install was as a complete Linux newcomer
(and did not need my old Unix knowledge), and since then I have become
a bit more knowledgable about most things Linux including kernel
building. Until I looked at the default RH6.1 configuration, I had not
realised just how un-optimised a "universal" kernel had to be. The
warning is; if you are in any way interested in optimising performance
and resource management, build your own kernel. It is not just for the
experts, as the manual might suggest.
Apart from that, not a bad effort. Still, if I had paid GBP70ish for
the "boxed" version, I would be wanting to know why I could not just
accept all the defaults, and end up with a perfect installation, just
like I have done with Windows 98 (although, not on my computer! ;-)