Looking for linux

Discussion in 'Linux & BSD' started by jay, Jan 7, 2002.

  1. jay

    jay Guest

    Where can i find a copy of linux os to download and try it on my partition?

    Microsoft Windows Xp
    Version 2002

    Intel Pentium III Processor
    595 Mhz
    256 Mb Of Ram
  2. jfrayzier

    jfrayzier Guest

    I have not dual-booted Linux and Windows before...but you can find linux at http://www.mandrake.com (I prefer the mandrake release)

    I found that the ftp mirror at Georgia Tech was fairly fast.
  3. clutch

    clutch Guest

  4. MiseryQ

    MiseryQ Guest

    I love the idea of loving Linux... just tha I hate it...

    Try here

    I've tried quite a few of them...
  5. Lactic.Acid

    Lactic.Acid Guest

    Please realize, jay, that Linux is an operating system like WindowsXP. You do not run Linux on the same partition the same way you run MS Word or something. Linux uses its own file system, though there are some ways you can install it and run it on a FAT32 partition rather than a Linux partition. The only thing about all of that, is you are probably using NTFS with WindowsXP and Linux can not read NTFS without add-ons, and you can not install Linux on an NTFS partition.

    That means that in order for you to dual-boot your computer with Linux you must use a disk management utility like PartitionMagic to create an NTFS partition on your hard drive.
  6. jfrayzier

    jfrayzier Guest

    Yes... and I recently started using Linux myself. You must also know that it is not as easy to configure as Windows. Most everything you do will no doubt require you to recompile the kernel to implement your changes.

    However, that is what makes Linux so stable. People can write their own code into the kernel to make it work exactly as they want it to. i.e. if you use it on a machine without a soundcard (like me... how many webservers need a sound card??) you can take out everything in the operating system that has to do with sound and recompile it. lower the overhead.
  7. AnD

    AnD Guest


    that is a really good site and the download speed is very fast.

    You will find every distributor from LINUX but it is all ISO.
  8. clutch

    clutch Guest

    No, that is not what "makes" Linux-based OSs so stable. While the ability to streamline code can contribute to stability by removing things that YOU perceive as not needed, that is by far not the reason it is getting this wonderful reputation for speed and stability.

    So, why is it getting this reputation? First, the average admin of a Linux box is far better at administering his system than the average NT admin. This person has gone through a LOT of effort to learn the OS (many of which were from the command line days) and some of them are also Unix admins with classic training as opposed to downloading a warez copy of NT and learning on your own. When I first starting fiddling around with Redhat 5.1 to see what was so special, I got *acquainted* with the term "kernel panic" as I kept crashing it out. Also, when all I wanted to do was to get a Redhat 6.0 system to be seen on my MS network, it took me a few days to get SAMBA up and running and some more tuning for stability (I am sure it is much more stable now, not to mention that I would be able to set it up much faster as well). Most MS admins are undertrained, as you will usually the "computer guy" in a small office winds up working with the server because he happens to know how to change the ink in the printer. If MS kept administration as complicated as *nix or Novell (;)), then you would see a lot less people playing admin on NT systems.

    The second reason is the great lack of applications that can be installed locally on a server. There are very, very, very few applications that should EVER be installed locally to a server. These are usually databases and collaboration based packages (like MS SQL and Exchange), however I have seen people install things like PC Anywhere (which had that lovely little side effect of crashing out Win2K systems with 9.0 and some 9.1 releases that claimed to be Win2K compliant) and desktop applications like Office* so that it can be used as a workstation. When someone sets up a Linux box to host an Oracle DB, chances are that person isn't going to throw on Word or something else onto that system because that box is now pretty much function specific.

    So, combine an improperly trained admin with having the ability to install just about anything on a server (not to mention that many programs that were written poorly to begin with can STILL be installed on a server because of backward compatibility) and it's amazing that half the servers run at all. I am not saying that all of the problems NT-based servers have encountered are merely through poor administration, but the majority are. There's a reason why you see high-end applications and hardware that have "Yes:Netware" logos on them for Novell approval, or why there's a lot less hardware out there for Sun (non x86) boxes; those companies want to keep the low-end hardware/software off of those systems. Why introduce more variables to the situation? Why beg for problems? They control what goes into the boxes as much as possible through certifications and marketing, and then stand back and laugh while some joker has 4 realtek NICs shoved into the new MS Small Business Server that he "built" out of an old PC with a couple of new hard drives, trying to get ISA to host his ftp site from work, and all the while getting hardware issues and all kinds of other problems. But that's OK, MS *should* have seen this coming and made ANOTHER wizard for this problem, right?


    *Outlook does have to be installed for use by MS SQL 2000 so it can generate emails to admins, plus using proper transforms you can install Office 2K/XP on a Win2K server running Terminal Server in Application hosting mode so that thin clients may use it. However, the comment I made is more reflective of low-level admins just using it as a workstation and in effect inviting problems to occur on these servers. If they are using the servers to check their email (viruses/worms) and word docs (worms), it would be logical to say these same people are browsing the web (more viruses and worms) and begging for more instability.
  9. MiseryQ

    MiseryQ Guest

    There is a distro that will install as a windows (fat32) folder...

    I don't remember which it is. But even the people who came up with admits it doean't run as fast as a "regular" distro
  10. JJB6486

    JJB6486 Retired Mod Political User

    West Lafayette, IN, USA
    Yea, its called Dragon Linux. From their website:

    DragonLinux is a complete Linux operating system distribution that has been customized to install on top of versions of Microsoft Windows or any version of DOS. This version is ideal for the new or beginning user who needs to learn, evaluate, teach or demonstrate Linux. Even more advanced users will enjoy the quick install and ability to co-exist with their existing desktop environment. DragonLinux offers simplicity through ease of installation, minimal initial configuration and no repartitioning of hard drives. Unlike most major Linux distributions, DragonLinux does not require you to risk your data by forcing you to repartition your hard drive.


    There are two verisons, Full (240MB, includes GUI, and other applicatios) and Light (46MB, includes only command line interface and some CLI servers). Or you can order a CD.

  11. Shover Bot

    Shover Bot Guest

    Depends on what school of thought you come from. If you want a somewhat more gradual learning curve, I'd suggest Mandrake or Redhat. If you want to dive right in, I'd say go with Slackware.
    However I'd say don't even touch a distro until you've either 1. Gotten a copy of Running Linux from O'reilly press and gone through it pretty well or 2. Found someone who is both knowledgeable and willing to help you. (Have you looked around for a Linux User's Group (LUG) in your area?) Most installs are fairly simple, but they can get tricky, and there are a lot of little tips and tricks for installation and use that only good documentation and/or lots of experience can clue you in on.

    Start your search with sites such as
    www.linux.org , www.freshmeat.org , and www.linuxnewbie.org

    Oh, and clutch, if this was slashdot, you'd have been burned at the stake for that post :p
  12. clutch

    clutch Guest

    @Shover Bot,

    If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen right? Plus, this is a board primarily based on Windows XP, and not *nix, so I guess there's one reason I am not posting there, eh?

  13. JJB6486

    JJB6486 Retired Mod Political User

    West Lafayette, IN, USA
    Yea, this post seems to be getting a bit off topic. Just check out some of the sites above if you want a copy of linux, and leave it at that.

  14. gothic

    gothic LinuXPert

    Cornwall Nr. England
    I've enjoyed the pleasures and frustrations of Linux for many years now and would recomend it to anybody who has the willpower to want to learn. I have been dual and triple booting using Bootmagic, and yes it works nicely under xp/9x/linux.

    Linux is an Os that needs plenty of patience and input (command line lives on!!) but I feel the rewards are well worth the effort.

    Pop out and buy either

    Linux Magazine
    Linux Format
    PC Plus

    The chances are that you'll find a Mandrake Distro on one of them (normally the most recent) and it's a simple case of firing in the CD. The installation recently has improved enormously, and is often graphic (as opposed to text based) but you must understand that most distros like their own partitions (at least 2, one root of about 2 gig and a linux swap of about 250 megs) but the formatting is done by their own utility on the fly.

    Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS !!

    I personally feel that a person who enjoys computing should't be tied by convention. I thoroughly enjoy the computing experience of xp, which I use for virtually all my work, but for R & R I use Linux, which is infinitely configurable, durable and fun.

    If you want more info e-mail me, I can talk (bore) for hours on Linux.

    good luck

  15. Bytes Back

    Bytes Back Ex Police Chief

    Na, never, really ??!! :D
  16. avatar

    avatar Guest

    I fully agree with gothic
    I'm running RedHat Linux 7.2 and have been running linux for a number of years
    Linux is using ext2 or ext3 filesys.
    Even if you're running XP with NTFS you still can mount you XP-partition under linux.
    Give it rw-permissions and away you go;
    as for the so called addons is concerned
    is just a question of recompile you kernel.
    Which is a piece of cake.
    Its quite different under UNIX which is my main OS.
  17. Shover Bot

    Shover Bot Guest

    Quite so. I was just pointing out the hilarity of severe OS zealotry.
  18. clutch

    clutch Guest

    While I am not sure how pointing out how the average Linux user is a lot brighter at OS administration than the average Windows user could be considered "severe OS zealotry", I can say that I find your idea on someone posting anything pro-MS on slashdot quite amusing. I was merely addressing a gross oversimplification about OS stability and how user administration has a much larger impact than what most people would think, but it seems much easier to stay with the sheep and blame the OS for the user's errors.
  19. noah472

    noah472 Guest

    Keep on bitchin Clutch, I have had loads of experience dealing with these so called network admins that you talk about to be able to say that most network admin folk do not have a clue what they are talking about!!! Instead of having a minimun spec of pc to run on i think there should be a minimun spec of user to run these systems, it would make my life (and a whole lot of other people in the support industry life's) a whole lot easier!!!

  20. dotbatman

    dotbatman Guest

    he's gonna blow!

    watch out, Cisco's gonna blow a gasket if this off-topic goes on much longer!

    heh heh, let's talk about people's favourite brand of coffee, really send him into a whirling rage...

    JK, Cisco, I'm just what my father in law calls a "shit disturber", though he says it in Polish.