Home › Forums › Archives › Computer Support › Computer Support Discussion › Slackware versus Mandrake
- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 1 month ago by FirefoxMan.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 11, 2005 at 9:48 pm #17379AwesomeSauceParticipant
I’ve been debating about which of these Linuxes to try.
Mandrake is supposed to be good for Linux newbies, and has a easy installer with a friendly GUI. There are screenshots here.
Slackware I heard is also pretty good. Actually, I even tried installing it yesterday, but the setup was really a pain, and now whenever I want to boot it up, I have to use a boot disk (I guess I must have done something wrong during the installation). So, I guess this is not really for newbies. I am not completely new to Linux; I have been using Xandros for a while, and it’s pretty good. Anyway, you can see some screenshots here.
So I am going to try Mandrake Linux, and I am confident that I will like it. I already ordered it from OSDisc.com last week, and it should be arriving in the mail very soon.
But I still want your opinion on which is better (just for home use). π
March 11, 2005 at 10:02 pm #116686DJHyperbyteMemberOn a side note, I assume you mean “Slackware versus Mandrake” in the topic?
As for the topic itself, I’ve never tried any Linux distribution than RedHat’s seriously, but Mandrake has a reputation of being quite user friendly also. As for a recommendation, I’d have to fall back on Fedora Core Linux. It’s user friendly, widely supported and has a quite big userbase (which means a lot of support).
One thing does confuse me. Why did you order the CD? π You could just download the ISO from mandrakelinux.com and burn it yourself, no?
March 11, 2005 at 10:35 pm #116693AwesomeSauceParticipantDJHyperbyte wrote:On a side note, I assume you mean “Slackware versus Mandrake” in the topic?Probably. π thanks.The site is a good place to get Linux if you don’t want to have to wait several hours for it to download, and burn it onto your own CDs. However I have DSL, I will download it if it’s smaller and if I feel like it. π
Edit: Dang, how do I change the thread title?
Shifter: Only Moderators can change thread titles. Strange but True. Anyway, ’tis done.March 11, 2005 at 11:02 pm #116683Jeff HesterKeymasterI have never tried Linux at all but I am very very very curious in learning and trying it out. Is it hard to learn? Even mandrake? This may be a dumb question but heck I don’t know, can you leave XP installed in case you install Linux and have no idea how to work it? What are the downsides? Can programs like Adobe Photoshop work on it? Does it start up sort of like Windows XP or do you have to type in commands? If you know a site that can teach you how to run and work with the OS (sort of like an instruction manual) I’d appreciate if you post it. I really like learning new things. hehe
March 11, 2005 at 11:54 pm #116687DJHyperbyteMemberAs I’m only familiar with Fedora Core Linux, I’ll write this post from my experience with Fedora Core. This means it may not be appliable to every Linux distribution.
MiamiGuy wrote:I have never tried Linux at all but I am very very very curious in learning and trying it out. Is it hard to learn? Even mandrake?Linux is not hard to learn at all, but there is a lot of jargon used. For example, Linux does not talk about “Network adapter #1” and “Network adapter #2”, but about “eth0” and “eth1”. Personally, I find Linux a lot easier to operate than Windows, because you are not limited to an operating system that is trying to automate every task and run entirely by itself.Linux would never tell you “I need to restart.” or “I need these upgrades.” You’ll have to figure that out for yourself. In other words, it doesn’t patronize you, but it does ask some additional tasks. π
MiamiGuy wrote:This may be a dumb question but heck I don’t know, can you leave XP installed in case you install Linux and have no idea how to work it?This is possible with dual boot. This means you install two operating systems on one harddisk. Each used harddisk contains one or more ‘partitions’. Now a partition is a part of the harddisk which can be used to store data seperate from others. For example, you could devide one harddisk in two partitions and have C: (SYSTEM) and D: (DATA) in Windows. You could as well have one partition for Windows and one (or actually two) for Linux.This is not very hard to do, as the Linux installation will ask you what it should do with the Windows partition. It can automatically install and configure a boot menu for you where you can pick if you want to start Linux or Windows. Funny enough, the Windows installation will tell you it cannot be installed on a computer where there is already Linux. π
So you’ll have to install Windows first if you are going to do this. Another problem is that you can’t really safely partition your harddisk when there is already data on it. If you have a second harddisk, that would be great for Linux. If you only have one, you’ll most likely have to wipe it to install Linux dualboot.
MiamiGuy wrote:What are the downsides? Can programs like Adobe Photoshop work on it? Does it start up sort of like Windows XP or do you have to type in commands?There are many downsides when you compare Linux to Windows, but there are also many when you compare Windows to Linux or Linux to MacOSX. Each OS has it’s own benefits.Programs made for Windows will not run (unless you emulate them, but that is somewhat silly). However, this does not mean that you cannot use Linux to edit photos or write documents. Linux has it’s own solutions for these things, such as OpenOffice and Gimp.
Some advantages:
– Linux comes with a lot of preinstalled software. If you don’t like the default media player, pick another. If you want to play some game, pick one out of the fifty it installs.
– Linux can be customized entirely. The default desktop theme is nice, but you could always get creative
– Linux is an opensource platform, as is most software developed for it. This means most (not all, though) software developed for Linux is free, has a lot of support and a lot of unofficial patches and modifications available.Some disadvantages:
– Compatibility. Linux does not support Windows software, nor does Windows support Linux software. This sometimes means you can’t use the software of your choice, but Linux does have lots of alternatives for software solutions.
– Difficulty. Linux can be quite difficult sometimes, but the benefit is that Linux always gives clear error messages – which makes it easy to find the problem, but even easier to go to Google and just read the solution.MiamiGuy wrote:If you know a site that can teach you how to run and work with the OS (sort of like an instruction manual) I’d appreciate if you post it. I really like learning new things. heheGoogle. Google knows everything about Linux. There are also support forums for most Linux distributions (like for Fedora).Hope this helps. π
March 11, 2005 at 11:54 pm #116694AwesomeSauceParticipantI remember when I first tried Xandros. It was easy, because I only had to download one ISO and burn it onto one CD. Then I had to make a boot floppy for it because the old computer I was going to install it on couldn’t boot from a CD. I had to restart the computer with the CD and the floppy in it, and then there was an easy installation and I guess that’s about all it took. But with some Linux distributions you have to burn several CDs.
So I am very interested in Linux too, and I’m very curious, that’s why I like to try several different kinds. However, I never really learned to use what apperantly is a very important part of Linux: the command prompt. It would probably be a good thing to learn how to use it if you use Linux often. I’ll have to search for a site somewhere that teaches it.
I don’t think Photoshop will work with it; however, I know a good free alternative will work with it called The GIMP. There are many good, free programs that you can download the sources of and compile on Linux.
By the way, I think I am going to try Fedora Core 3. Everyone is saying good things about it, so I’d might as well.
March 12, 2005 at 12:23 am #116684Jeff HesterKeymasterThanks for the information DJHyperbyte and AwesomeSauce. It is really helpful and I appreciate the time you took in answering. I have an old computer I don’t use anymore but it is still usable just not for games and high memory demanding programs so I’m going to probably reformat it and use it to test Linux, probably Fedora since it apparently sounds really good and before that though I’ll read up and gather as much information as I can on it and learn the most I can. One thing though. I take it I won’t be able to connect to the internet through it since my modem installation cd was made for Windows XP so I’ll have to use my laptop for that I guess.
March 12, 2005 at 12:52 am #116695AwesomeSauceParticipantThe Fedora Download Instructions says “If you are already running Linux, you can save an ISO image to a directory on your machine or another machine on the network. You may then mount the ISO image to look at or copy files.” Do I have to do this, or is it optional?
What I was going to do is download the ISO images on a Windows machine (Actually it’s downloading right now), burn the CDs and install it on another computer that doesn’t have an internet connection.
And how can I make a boot floppy to start the installation? or maybe it comes with the torrent that’s downloading?
March 12, 2005 at 1:04 am #116688DJHyperbyteMemberAwesomeSauce wrote:What I was going to do is download the ISO images on a Windows machine (Actually it’s downloading right now), burn the CDs and install it on another computer that doesn’t have an internet connection.And how can I make a boot floppy to start the installation? or maybe it comes with the torrent that’s downloading?Good plan, go for it… and the Fedora Core installation is bootable from CD. π
Since you’re downloading a torrent, be aware of this: RedHat has a great amount of mirrors available. This means that you can often download the ISO’s at full speed. I downloaded the four Fedora Core 3 installation disks in an hour or so using a mirror close to me.
Look here for the complete list: http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors.html
March 12, 2005 at 1:14 am #116685Jeff HesterKeymasterOne more question, when I go here and I go down to where it says Download the ISO images and click on the link, I see 10 files. I need to download them all? and run each one from a total of what looks like 9 cd’s since I see 9 iso and then a file called md5sum?
March 12, 2005 at 1:25 am #116699FirefoxManMemberLong live Fedora Core! I’m about to install it on our old machine. I love FC3, very awesome indeed!
March 12, 2005 at 1:28 am #116696AwesomeSauceParticipantAwesomeSauce wrote:The Fedora Download Instructions says “If you are already running Linux, you can save an ISO image to a directory on your machine or another machine on the network. You may then mount the ISO image to look at or copy files.” Do I have to do this, or is it optional?Can you answer my question, Hyperbyte (or anyone else)?And the computer I’m installing it on can’t boot from CDs. So how can I make a boot floppy? Edit: nevermind, I found diskboot.img on one of the mirror servers.
Oh, and I have now changed my mind to use a mirror instead to download the ISOs, and they are now downloading with my FTP client. Edit: I changed my mind again; the torrent seems to be going faster and my FTP client was giving me errors. :/
And MiamiGuy, there are 4 ISOs that you need to download and burn onto 4 CDs. And I guess you need to check to make sure everything downloaded correctly by checking the md5 checksums and see if they match these:
For x86-compatible (32-bit):
FC3-i386-disc1.iso (md5sum: db8c7254beeb4f6b891d1ed3f689b412)
FC3-i386-disc2.iso (md5sum: 2c11674cf429fe570445afd9d5ff564e)
FC3-i386-disc3.iso (md5sum: f88f6ab5947ca41f3cf31db04487279b)
FC3-i386-disc4.iso (md5sum: 6331c00aa3e8c088cc365eeb7ef230ea)For x86_64 (64-bit AMD64, EM64T):
FC3-x86_64-disc1.iso (md5sum: b61b0eb7e0171837aeeff4f0054a4d79)
FC3-x86_64-disc2.iso (md5sum: 99dc12c7e8a93844a48a5675a9c07ec9)
FC3-x86_64-disc3.iso (md5sum: 399b7ffd721ebb4244a02c34cdbb1b82)
FC3-x86_64-disc4.iso (md5sum: f58b1de3b880df55dbbd37d143419226)March 12, 2005 at 4:56 am #116691EEDOKMembertorrents are better anyways as they have less packet loss, so there’s less chance of a disc error. Fedora core is nice and all, but once you get tired of waiting so long for everything to happen I’d highly recommend you to install ubuntu.
When it boils down to mandrake vs slackware, I’d have to side with slackware as there’s less crap in it(and it’s far more stable).
I’ve been made world famous by my ability to help people find their distro home, here’s the reason why:
http://eedok.voidofmind.com/linux/chooser.htmlso far this has been 87% accurate in getting peoples choice of linux distros right.
EDIT:
Oh yea and if you have absolutely any questions about linux or aren’t sure about something, I’ve been living near exclusively in linux world for 2 years now(and I’ve got my LPIC, worthless peice of paper :p).March 12, 2005 at 10:06 am #116689DJHyperbyteMemberEEDOK wrote:Fedora core is nice and all, but once you get tired of waiting so long for everything to happen I’d highly recommend you to install ubuntu.This sounds more like an advertisement than a real opinion to me. Fedora Core does not require more computing power than any other OS I’ve known. Fedora Core runs fine on a 133mhz in text mode and it runs quite smoothly in graphical mode on a 400mhz with 128mb ram.EEDOK wrote:When it boils down to mandrake vs slackware, I’d have to side with slackware as there’s less crap in it(and it’s far more stable).Well, yes… but you should take into account that you are dealing with someone who wants to do a server installation here. You are dealing with someone who has no experience with Linux and wants to do a desktop installation. Slackware is not an easy Linux distribution to start out with. Mandrake gets close, but for me Fedora Core still wins with ease-of-us.EEDOK wrote:I’ve been made world famous by my ability to help people find their distro home, here’s the reason why:
http://eedok.voidofmind.com/linux/chooser.htmlThat’s very nice work, but again I must you remind you it’s not something that’s for everybody. It still contains a lot of questions that the average user doesn’t have an answer for and personally, I don’t find the results very conclusive.EEDOK wrote:so far this has been 87% accurate in getting peoples choice of linux distros right.Well, it had mine wrong. πEEDOK wrote:EDIT:
Oh yea and if you have absolutely any questions about linux or aren’t sure about something as away, I’ve been living near exclusively in linux world for 2 years now(and I’ve got my LPIC, worthless peice of paper :p).Please don’t brag, it doesn’t make you look very intelligent. πMarch 12, 2005 at 10:12 am #116690DJHyperbyteMemberMiamiGuy wrote:One more question, when I go here and I go down to where it says Download the ISO images and click on the link, I see 10 files. I need to download them all? and run each one from a total of what looks like 9 cd’s since I see 9 iso and then a file called md5sum?You mean here I assume? The “SRPMS” CD’s contain the source of the operating system. It’s very useful in some cases, but in yours certainly not. π As for the rescue CD, that’s a new one to me. Seems nice enough though. πAnd MiamiGuy’s assumption about the MD5Sum of a file is correct. It’s to verify that the file is 100% OK before you go to burn and install it, as you could run into some pretty weird errors when they are not OK. You can verify the MD5Sums with the Linux command ‘md5sum <filename>’, but if you don’t have Linux yet I suggest winMD5Sum.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.