Learning Linux - Advice Needed - Page 2

Tapir · 07-06-2007, 01:55 AM

I had been playing around with Ubuntu. Then at work we are changing our complete reservation and accounting system. We MUST use RED Hat. So before going there I earnestly have been testing Suse 10.2 and Ubuntu. Actually i set up two rigs just for that. I think you may find it easier to familiarize yourself by using Suse (kind of sluggish compared to ubuntu). Of course it all depends on how in depth you will be involved with the software.
By the way I just love Ubuntu. Using it for almost 8 days continually. Still having some problems with tar.gz, deb etc etc.

But back to the point. Once you get a hold of Suse then jump at Redhat.

John64 · 07-06-2007, 02:12 AM

i personally find suse counter intuative. My opinion is that if you need to learn redhat, learn redhat. Ubuntu is amazing, and suse is sufficiently different to redhat that learning either isn't really all that useful

**pointreyes** · 07-06-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John64

i personally find suse counter intuative. My opinion is that if you need to learn redhat, learn redhat. Ubuntu is amazing, and suse is sufficiently different to redhat that learning either isn't really all that useful

I agree. SUSE and RedHat are two different beasts. Plus many newbies (no offense to you ronbo, it's merely a general observation

) associate the Desktop manager with Linux and SUSE using KDE and RedHat using Gnome helps to add to the confusion of learning some of the GUI sides of server administration - that's one of the reasons I recommend using webmin for a consistent centralized GUI server administration tool

ronbo 613 · 07-06-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointreyes

I agree. SUSE and RedHat are two different beasts. Plus many newbies (no offense to you ronbo, it's merely a general observation

) associate the Desktop manager with Linux and SUSE using KDE and RedHat using Gnome helps to add to the confusion of learning some of the GUI sides of server administration - that's one of the reasons I recommend using webmin for a consistent centralized GUI server administration tool

I'm not offended, I am a newbie at Linux any way you slice it. I figured that there would be some similarity between all these languages. I've heard of all of them, I never thought there would be so much difference between them.
Ubuntu seems popular at the moment, I read an article that said it would take a big bite out of Red Hat in the near future. Would you say the difference between Ubuntu and Red Hat is major or minor? That is, if I got a grip on Ubuntu, would it help me at all if I needed to deal with Red Hat?

**pointreyes** · 07-06-2007, 04:31 PM

I consider the difference between Ubuntu and Red Hat to be major. The installation of software is the main difference - Ubuntu is Debian-based whereas Red Hat is well, Red Hat-based. RPM used to mean Red Hat Package Manager if that gives you an idea of how much of a difference Red Hat made in the early years of package management installers.

SUSE is RPM-based for there software installation but I have found File Hierarchy Structure (FHS) of SUSE different from Red Hat. FHS will be different between Debian-based distros and Red Hat as well. Debian-based means another thing as well, non-commercial open-source is extremely important. Ubuntu is blurring that line a little bit which actually makes me like using Ubuntu over Debian. Red Hat, SUSE, and other rpm-based distros are not overly concerned about the commercial/non-commercial aspect. I believe this is part of the reason why corporations are willing to invest in the rpm-based distros. Note: That you will need to understand how to compile your own programs but that sometimes means that you need to understand the FHS for some tweaking; however, there's a good chance that if it's Red Hat, you may have less configurations to deal with. Back in the olden' days, Red Hat was the easier distro for kernel upgrades because the person that tested and approved the kernel updates worked at Red Hat.

Tapir · 07-06-2007, 08:53 PM

I could not agree with you more PT. (In spite of what I said in my earlier post.) I indeed did try Red Hat some years ago but at that time was not impressed. However, going by the many users here and other places, it might be worth it going straight off to Red Hat.

ronbo 613 · 07-07-2007, 02:55 AM

Very interesting. I was under the impression that the different versions of Linux were fairly similar. So Red Hat is the choice of business because it has "factory" support?

Moop · 07-07-2007, 09:48 AM

I think they are fairly similar, at least for a noob like me. In the same way that XP is similar to Vista but not everything works the same.

Moop · 07-07-2007, 09:56 AM

Distrowatch has a good comparison of the major distributions with pros and cons for each.
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

shaihulud · 07-07-2007, 11:28 AM

Linux is interesting. The only problem with Linux is Linux itself. This can be comprehended in many ways, and is meant to.

Linux is like martial arts. There are a many a distributions that a person can download and utilize. Change, configure, and install to his liking. There are many disciplines of the arts that one can study, and often a self enlightening question is asked. A student will ask a master, what is the best martial art? The master will say “There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but they will each see the same moon.” This is part of “the way.”

Linux at the very core is only a kernel. The distributions are a conglomerate of applications with the kernel. In this you may start to see part of the Achilles heel of Linux, and yet the unique prolific ability of Linux. Linux has many paths but in all it is Linux. You can even turn one distribution into another basic element of another.

So, personally, this is what I see that can benefit others with Linux. Linux is based on fundamentalisms. If you do not start at the very bottom you will become lost in the Linux world. Learning the base of anything allows movement in any direction, mainly to the top of understanding. Only scratching the surface will give you a perceptual peak of what is around you with no ability to move any further in understanding.

This is one of the issues to me with Linux. Since the fundamental structure is not understood the views become so askew. At least once a day I would read from a Linux zealot a manifesto. It becomes tiresome reading from people that take something wonderful and totally reverse its meaningful and aspiring truth into something of hate of their own will.

Linux is a reflection of humanity. Well, technically, it was UNIX was the reflection first. Then Linux came from a variant of Minix that was horrible in many aspects. So it inspired Linus Torvalds to create something that was more user friendly. Add oregano with altruism, stir and then serve the kernel with the GNU. Then you basically have it in a nutshell. This social contract is a very important aspect of Linux, and you will see the arguments fly when issues related to the source or the GPL such not’s happen.

So, to ask what is the best distro? This is a question that you yourself will have to see. Everyone will have their preference but it will not be due to the fact that it is Linux. It will be due to familiarity, customization, utilizations, application included, etc. So, yes, it will be based on ease rather than what it more robust.

Maybe now you are seeing some of the heel? It has a critical mass of sorts. For you have the true Linux people saying “We do not want to be like Windows or Macs! We want to be command line!” It goes on and on. Kind of a beautiful thing, for it is not only an evolutionary process but also a natural selection all in one.

So with this somewhat confusing understanding I am trying to explain, I say find the one in which catches you first. You will find that on your path that Linux is Linux. How complete or annoying a distro is only preference. But they still use the same commands.

ronbo 613 · 07-07-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaihulud

If you do not start at the very bottom you will become lost in the Linux world.

I am making it my personal quest to find the lowest possible rung on the Linux ladder to enlightenment.

**pointreyes** · 07-07-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronbo 613

I am making it my personal quest to find the lowest possible rung on the Linux ladder to enlightenment.

Then start here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

**k0NG0** · 07-07-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointreyes

Then start here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Though that's a bit like giving a guy who wants to learn to drive a big slab of aluminium saying "go ahead and machine the engine first". Or at the very least, giving him a kit car with questionable documentation.

Slackware is pretty low-level still. Just came out with version 12 a few days ago! Very Unix-y. I got my feet wet with Slack 9 a couple years ago and it was a good introduction if you ask me. (I believe it was pointreyes who actually recommended I go that way). Very few, if any, GUI tools for configuration, a quite unsophisticated package system (compared to RPM, apt-get etc. that is).

Also, if the people you'll work with can't accept that someone who hasn't farted bash scripts since the age of 2 isn't up to their level of sophistication, well, they'd need a reality check and possibly a punch in the groin. Though it's a good ice breaker showing that while you haven't mastered it, you're actively educating yourself. Geeks who have at least a scintilla of social interaction skills tend to be quite nurturing when it comes to people wanting to learn their craft. (Of course, there are complete asshat geeks as well, but that's just the human race for you.)

ronbo 613 · 07-07-2007, 02:49 PM

I figure I can learn as I go, but I've wanted to learn Linux for some time so I want to take the bull by the horns, so to speak.
Wouldn't mind having a Linux server for my work. Besides DOS, I haven't really had to get into a computer language since I started with Fortran on the first computer I ever used, sometime in the last century..........

shaihulud · 07-07-2007, 04:06 PM

A server provides services. It can be any host system in which will allow a user to be able to utilize such that it becomes a server. So installing Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSe, etc, and enabling SMB shares (Samba) you will basically have a server and learned a fundamental interface with networking other host systems.

First you crawl, then you stand, learn to balance, start to walk, and then finally run. All things take time, don’t rush yourself. You may miss something. So yes, you will be learning as you go along. Experience is the only true education. Unfortunately, experience is based somewhat on mistakes.

07-06-2007, 01:55 AM	#16
Tapir Wisdom Will Always Linger Join Date: May 2004 Location: Belize, The Jewel Posts: 3,016	Red Hat I had been playing around with Ubuntu. Then at work we are changing our complete reservation and accounting system. We MUST use RED Hat. So before going there I earnestly have been testing Suse 10.2 and Ubuntu. Actually i set up two rigs just for that. I think you may find it easier to familiarize yourself by using Suse (kind of sluggish compared to ubuntu). Of course it all depends on how in depth you will be involved with the software. By the way I just love Ubuntu. Using it for almost 8 days continually. Still having some problems with tar.gz, deb etc etc. But back to the point. Once you get a hold of Suse then jump at Redhat. __________________ ***************************************************************************************** Knowledge: Either you have it or know where to get it! *************************************************************************************** You need to have the right question to get the right answer. *************************************************************************************** The greatest right any nation can afford its people is the right to be left alone. *************************************************************************************** BIOSTAR - P4M80-M4, P4-2.8E HT, MSI NX6200AX-TD256 DDR, 2X512 PC3200 MICRON DDR 400, HITACHI 80G & SAMSUNG 40G, LITEON 20XDVDR, MOTOROLA SB5100 CABLE MODEM, 56K V92 AGERE FAX MODEM, X TECH OPTICAL MOUSE, AIR COOLED - 5 FANS, UBUNTU HARDY HERON (8.04) *****************************************************************************************
(Offline)

07-06-2007, 02:12 AM	#17
John64 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 4,449	i personally find suse counter intuative. My opinion is that if you need to learn redhat, learn redhat. Ubuntu is amazing, and suse is sufficiently different to redhat that learning either isn't really all that useful __________________
(Offline)

07-06-2007, 04:31 PM	#20
pointreyes The race for quality has no finish line- so technically, it's more like a death march. Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 18,159	I consider the difference between Ubuntu and Red Hat to be major. The installation of software is the main difference - Ubuntu is Debian-based whereas Red Hat is well, Red Hat-based. RPM used to mean Red Hat Package Manager if that gives you an idea of how much of a difference Red Hat made in the early years of package management installers. SUSE is RPM-based for there software installation but I have found File Hierarchy Structure (FHS) of SUSE different from Red Hat. FHS will be different between Debian-based distros and Red Hat as well. Debian-based means another thing as well, non-commercial open-source is extremely important. Ubuntu is blurring that line a little bit which actually makes me like using Ubuntu over Debian. Red Hat, SUSE, and other rpm-based distros are not overly concerned about the commercial/non-commercial aspect. I believe this is part of the reason why corporations are willing to invest in the rpm-based distros. Note: That you will need to understand how to compile your own programs but that sometimes means that you need to understand the FHS for some tweaking; however, there's a good chance that if it's Red Hat, you may have less configurations to deal with. Back in the olden' days, Red Hat was the easier distro for kernel upgrades because the person that tested and approved the kernel updates worked at Red Hat. __________________
(Offline)

07-06-2007, 08:53 PM	#21
Tapir Wisdom Will Always Linger Join Date: May 2004 Location: Belize, The Jewel Posts: 3,016	I could not agree with you more PT. (In spite of what I said in my earlier post.) I indeed did try Red Hat some years ago but at that time was not impressed. However, going by the many users here and other places, it might be worth it going straight off to Red Hat. __________________ ***************************************************************************************** Knowledge: Either you have it or know where to get it! *************************************************************************************** You need to have the right question to get the right answer. *************************************************************************************** The greatest right any nation can afford its people is the right to be left alone. *************************************************************************************** BIOSTAR - P4M80-M4, P4-2.8E HT, MSI NX6200AX-TD256 DDR, 2X512 PC3200 MICRON DDR 400, HITACHI 80G & SAMSUNG 40G, LITEON 20XDVDR, MOTOROLA SB5100 CABLE MODEM, 56K V92 AGERE FAX MODEM, X TECH OPTICAL MOUSE, AIR COOLED - 5 FANS, UBUNTU HARDY HERON (8.04) *****************************************************************************************
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 02:55 AM	#22
ronbo 613 Computer User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,642	Very interesting. I was under the impression that the different versions of Linux were fairly similar. So Red Hat is the choice of business because it has "factory" support?
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 09:48 AM	#23
Moop Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 659	I think they are fairly similar, at least for a noob like me. In the same way that XP is similar to Vista but not everything works the same. __________________ A8N32-SLI Deluxe - Opteron 170 - G.Skill F1-4000USU2-2GBHZ - Leadtek 7950gx2 - Zalman CNPS7000A-ALCU - OCZ GameXStream 600w - Antec P180b - Ubuntu 7.1
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 09:56 AM	#24
Moop Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 659	Distrowatch has a good comparison of the major distributions with pros and cons for each. http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major __________________ A8N32-SLI Deluxe - Opteron 170 - G.Skill F1-4000USU2-2GBHZ - Leadtek 7950gx2 - Zalman CNPS7000A-ALCU - OCZ GameXStream 600w - Antec P180b - Ubuntu 7.1
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 11:28 AM	#25
shaihulud Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,239	Linux is interesting. The only problem with Linux is Linux itself. This can be comprehended in many ways, and is meant to. Linux is like martial arts. There are a many a distributions that a person can download and utilize. Change, configure, and install to his liking. There are many disciplines of the arts that one can study, and often a self enlightening question is asked. A student will ask a master, what is the best martial art? The master will say “There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but they will each see the same moon.” This is part of “the way.” Linux at the very core is only a kernel. The distributions are a conglomerate of applications with the kernel. In this you may start to see part of the Achilles heel of Linux, and yet the unique prolific ability of Linux. Linux has many paths but in all it is Linux. You can even turn one distribution into another basic element of another. So, personally, this is what I see that can benefit others with Linux. Linux is based on fundamentalisms. If you do not start at the very bottom you will become lost in the Linux world. Learning the base of anything allows movement in any direction, mainly to the top of understanding. Only scratching the surface will give you a perceptual peak of what is around you with no ability to move any further in understanding. This is one of the issues to me with Linux. Since the fundamental structure is not understood the views become so askew. At least once a day I would read from a Linux zealot a manifesto. It becomes tiresome reading from people that take something wonderful and totally reverse its meaningful and aspiring truth into something of hate of their own will. Linux is a reflection of humanity. Well, technically, it was UNIX was the reflection first. Then Linux came from a variant of Minix that was horrible in many aspects. So it inspired Linus Torvalds to create something that was more user friendly. Add oregano with altruism, stir and then serve the kernel with the GNU. Then you basically have it in a nutshell. This social contract is a very important aspect of Linux, and you will see the arguments fly when issues related to the source or the GPL such not’s happen. So, to ask what is the best distro? This is a question that you yourself will have to see. Everyone will have their preference but it will not be due to the fact that it is Linux. It will be due to familiarity, customization, utilizations, application included, etc. So, yes, it will be based on ease rather than what it more robust. Maybe now you are seeing some of the heel? It has a critical mass of sorts. For you have the true Linux people saying “We do not want to be like Windows or Macs! We want to be command line!” It goes on and on. Kind of a beautiful thing, for it is not only an evolutionary process but also a natural selection all in one. So with this somewhat confusing understanding I am trying to explain, I say find the one in which catches you first. You will find that on your path that Linux is Linux. How complete or annoying a distro is only preference. But they still use the same commands.
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 02:49 PM	#29
ronbo 613 Computer User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,642	I figure I can learn as I go, but I've wanted to learn Linux for some time so I want to take the bull by the horns, so to speak. Wouldn't mind having a Linux server for my work. Besides DOS, I haven't really had to get into a computer language since I started with Fortran on the first computer I ever used, sometime in the last century..........
(Offline)

07-07-2007, 04:06 PM	#30
shaihulud Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,239	A server provides services. It can be any host system in which will allow a user to be able to utilize such that it becomes a server. So installing Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSe, etc, and enabling SMB shares (Samba) you will basically have a server and learned a fundamental interface with networking other host systems. First you crawl, then you stand, learn to balance, start to walk, and then finally run. All things take time, don’t rush yourself. You may miss something. So yes, you will be learning as you go along. Experience is the only true education. Unfortunately, experience is based somewhat on mistakes.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode