I tried fedora once, didnt like it. Have you thought about SuSE or Ubuntu (Debian based). I have used both ot those recently and I like em. SuSE's YaST configuraterma-bob is the best I have ever seen. Ubuntu is quick and painless to set up, and has the power and flexibility of Debian's apt-get installer.
--mat Tim Sullivan wrote: > Ok I think I will put Linux on my extra box. But this is for my home > network. I was looking for something or a program that was "cool" to just > say I did it. I have Cox so I cant run a mail server or use the typical port > 80 for the web. I am running a coyote Linux as my router and it kick butt > compared to the linksys, d-link or netgear ones. So which distro of Linux is > best for a server os with a gui interface? I was thinking of using mandrake > or fedora. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of John Hebert > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [brlug-general] Linux or Windows > > Good question! > > I have a longish answer for you, and please bear with me while I explain it, > because at first it will seem like I am recommending Windows instead of > Linux. > > Because most of the software that runs on Linux is free and open source, you > can find versions of this software already compiled for Windows. > > For example, the webserver Apache can be downloaded and installed on > Windows, as well as the relational database server MySQL, and lots of mail > servers as well, and on and on. For a good, but incomplete, list of free and > open source software that runs on Windows, see > http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/apps/en/bestlist.html. > > So, if Windows can run most of the same software that Linux can, why use > Linux at all? > > Well, for programmers and server administrators, it is not a question of > software capabilities, but a question of openness and flexibility. In other > words, I can do more with Linux than I can with Windows. Of course, there is > a learning curve with Linux, but anything worthwhile takes effort. > > For example, instead of relying on Microsoft's Internet Firewall included > with WinXP, I can download and install a free firewall for Linux, and then > learn how to configure it to do a _lot_ more than I could with Microsoft's > Internet Firewall. > > For example, I could write a rule that says if somebody is repeatedly trying > to hack into my Linux box, I can block any further traffic from that IP > address. To do the same on a Microsoft box would require buying software. > Probably expensive software. > The same goes for mail servers. Trying to block spam with a Microsoft only > mail server requires $$$. The Linux way is _free_, not only free as in beer, > but free as in speech as well. This means that I am free to make my own > solutions and do with them as I please, even to share it with others. > > Granted, you may not want to take the time to climb that learning curve, but > the popularity of Linux shows that many do. I personally like having control > over my computer with the only limitation being my brain and time in gaining > yet more control and capabilities. > > Think of Linux as being like a really big Erector set or a huge box of > Legos, and Microsoft Windows as a vending machine with one of those cranes > in it. > > With Linux, you can build whatever mechanisms and toys you want and share > what you build with others. And likewise, you can download and use what > others have built as well, and even modify and improve what others have > built, and then reshare your improvements. > > With Microsoft Windows, you put your quarters in and choose from what is > available in the vending machine's bin. Sometimes the crane doesn't quite > work, requiring more quarters to be spent. And then, you can't fix the > crane, because the box is welded shut. ;) > > Sure, it saves time to buy the stuff, if what I need is available, and if it > works. I am not an anti-Microsoft zealot; if it works and makes sense for > the user/business, then great. BTW, I am a Microsoft C# programmer where I > work, but don't tell anybody. :) > > But for my personal use, I prefer using tools like Linux, because I can > learn to build my own tools to solve the problem at hand, which gives me > back a lot more than just buying a solution outright. > > Now if only Half Life 2 ran on Linux... > > John > > --- Tim Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I have this spare computer at the house and I am looking to put a >>server os on it. I am wanting to put Linux on it. So my question >>is.... What can Linux do that windows can't? I know about the security >>Issues, cost issues, and I am not a programmer so those things are not >>a consideration at all. I am not trying to put down Linux at all just >>curious to see what the difference is and why Linux would be the >>better os to use. >> >> >> >>Tim >> >>>_______________________________________________ >> >>General mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. > www.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
