"Steven C. Darnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob George wrote: > > > > Some of the newer, sexier distributions with the nice installs > > might not work well on the old hardware. > > You say this like it's a bad thing.
No, no. Just based on recent experience, I thought it worth emphasizing that trying to put the latest-greatest distribution on unknown hardware might yield, shall we say, "mixed results" depending on the abilities of the installer. > > Ideally, I'd say initially learn Linux on somewhat modern > > hardware > > You seem to be saying that newbies should start with a Linux > GUI and then move on to the CLI. Why is this? It's like saying > you should start with Windows 2000 and then move on to DOS. If someone is limited on time and wants to get things running quickly, the newer distributions are quite helpful, especially when one has a mix of hardware. Even if you install all the GUI bells and whistles, it's still Linux underneath. I think it's important for a newbie to experience success, and being stopped by things like inability to view documentation can be frustrating if not working with a full set of tools. That doesn't mean "use only the GUI tools." On the contrary, use the fancy installer to get running quickly, but dive immediately into the innards (via xterm or CLI startup) ON A WORKING SYSTEM. My pesonal opinion is that working a bit with a system that's functional will be more productive than futzing getting the basics going without an understanding of what's going on. Other factors, such as availability of another machine to get online if the Linux box fails, friends/neighbors/LUG assistance and so on, all come into play. > > unless you're a real die-hard. > > I think by definition anybody subscribing to survPC is a > read die-hard. <humor> I *used* to think that. Then I found that mc's lack of 100% keystroke compatability with its DOS counterpart was a major limitation of Linux. </humor> John did mention he'd had some frustrations before, so I'm making my suggestion as to an approach that will be met with success. There are others, of course. > > You'll find I'm a big Debian Linux fan > > Debian is certainly better than RedHat. There are lots of > reasons to like Debian. A few folks seem to think so. :) > > I can't say that I know much about Steven's BasicLinux, > > :-( Nothing personal! Just lack of time these days. I do love playing with minimalist configs, but it's all I can do to keep up with work and a few of my interests! > > but if higher-end hardware is not available, at least you > > can ask him for help here! :) > > The linux-newbie list is also a good place to get help for > problems. Good point! LOTS of places for good info. 'Course you'll be tough to beat for BasicLinux help, and we know you monitor this list! > > Sounds like you'll want to muster up at least a 486 with > > 32MB RAM. It can certainly be done with less, > > 386dx33 with 8meg RAM For a small distribution, yes. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable recommending that with a networked gateway configuration running Samba and some of the other packages I was suggesting though. Erring on the side of caution. > > but it's a bit cumbersome (IMHO). > > Cumbersome how? No GUI? No, just lack of RAM impacting speed, subjectively speaking. If John just wanted to "run Linux", I might say less. But he does specifically want to build a small workgroup server, so I feel more hardware might be appropriate given the approach I'm suggesting. I know my old 486 was always happier with more RAM, even though it would/could/did get by with less when running in a networked gateway configuration including Samba, JunkBuster, etc. You could tell the difference when pulling files from clients (at least my family could). At 32MB, things smoothed out nicely. Of course, I prefaced that with an IMHO, and you're certainly welcome to suggest other combinations! Anyone on the list doing a workgroup server with less? (FYI: My first Linux install was a Walnut Creek distribution of Slackware 2.1, which ran on a sturdy old 386 with... <tadah!> 8MB RAM. Don't think I don't respect what can be done with that hardware! :) > > Check out Diald > > Done right, the Linux server will connect whenever someone > > fires up a browser > > I seem to recall reading somewhere that the new version of > pppd includes this capability (making diald obsolete?). I'm > still using the old version of pppd, so it doesn't apply here. > But, someone with a more up-to-date pppd might want to check > it out before trying to install diald. The last I looked into it, pppd could do the basics, but diald offered more control. Again, no lack of options. I had some *very good* success with diald in the past, so can recommend it based on that. I suppose trying pppd 'basic', then adding diald if necessary is a sound approach. Good recommendation! > > Keep an open mind, have fun exploring and I think you'll be > > pleasantly surprised at how well an old SurvPC can be pushed > > into service as a fully capable replacement for a much more > > pricey Windows server. > > Hear! Hear! Hey John! Give us some more details on what you've got to work with, and what you want to do and I'm sure you'll get some good suggestions. Long Live da Linux! - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
