Discussion
Right.
I've spent the last week playing with ubuntu (debian), sabayon (gentoo), opensuse (novell/suse) & pclinuxos (mandrake). I'm amazed how easily they install and how well they detect and configure hardware. Surprisingly, ubuntu was the one I had most grief with, but that was only getting compiz to run and a quick foray into their support forum provided the answers. It is noticeable that online support for linux is generally more responsive, friendly and helpful than the redmond alternative - although it's a long time since I've needed help configuring windows so maybe that's a little unfair.
The only job I've given them to stress the systems is compiling the kernel, which was strikingly similar for all.
While these distros are not quite direct replacements for windoze, for anyone with a little enthusiasm they're pretty darn close, certainly a better prospect than macs so far as I'm concerned.
All in all it's been fun experimenting but I've still not decided which to go with 'full time' yet.
Thanks to those here & elsewhere who helped & guided me.
I've spent the last week playing with ubuntu (debian), sabayon (gentoo), opensuse (novell/suse) & pclinuxos (mandrake). I'm amazed how easily they install and how well they detect and configure hardware. Surprisingly, ubuntu was the one I had most grief with, but that was only getting compiz to run and a quick foray into their support forum provided the answers. It is noticeable that online support for linux is generally more responsive, friendly and helpful than the redmond alternative - although it's a long time since I've needed help configuring windows so maybe that's a little unfair.
The only job I've given them to stress the systems is compiling the kernel, which was strikingly similar for all.
While these distros are not quite direct replacements for windoze, for anyone with a little enthusiasm they're pretty darn close, certainly a better prospect than macs so far as I'm concerned.
All in all it's been fun experimenting but I've still not decided which to go with 'full time' yet.
Thanks to those here & elsewhere who helped & guided me.
qube_TA said:
...Debian etc are for freaks who get off fiddling with their operating system rather than actually doing anything productive,
That's total bo
ocks. I selected Debian as my (email/web proxy/webmail) server because it requires me to do the least actual work to achieve any given task.Gentoo I know nothing about, so you might have a point there.
LordGrover said:
While these distros are not quite direct replacements for windoze, for anyone with a little enthusiasm they're pretty darn close, certainly a better prospect than macs so far as I'm concerned.
I do find that an odd comment to make really... if you consider Linux on the desktop as a potential alternative to Windows, then Mac OS X is an even better prospect, considering that Microsoft make Office for the Mac, yet it's Unix underneath (more like BSD than Linux, but virtually all the OSS works).
The best valid argument against the Mac is the closed hardware platform (i.e. you can't (easily) build your own machine out of your favourite parts and run Mac OS X on it) and the cost - you have to buy a machine from Apple. But the operating system is brilliant - it will run Apple's polished professional software, Microsoft's Office, and virtually all your Linux / open source apps, all on one machine.
The one other technical issue relates to the fact that the Linux kernel handles fine grained thread scheduling better than the OS X kernel, but this is very geeky and irrelevant for desktop users.
I'm curious to know why you thought Linux was a far better prospect than OS X - was it purely because of the hardware issue, or did you not realise that most of your Linux source will compile and run on OS X?
LordGrover said:
The last. 
Does it come with a compiler? Maybe worth having another crack at it then.
Comes with GCC and a full, professional IDE - XCode.Does it come with a compiler? Maybe worth having another crack at it then.
There's a couple of approaches to getting all that open source goodness, Fink and DarwinPorts.
Due to my Debian approach, I prefer Fink.
CommanderJameson said:
qube_TA said:
...Debian etc are for freaks who get off fiddling with their operating system rather than actually doing anything productive,
That's total boocks. I selected Debian as my (email/web proxy/webmail) server because it requires me to do the least actual work to achieve any given task.Gentoo I know nothing about, so you might have a point there.
ocks installing a package on Linux is pretty much the same on any distro, the command might vary (apt-get, yum, yast, smart etc) but the amount of 'work' you have to do is identical to get them working, that is if you can stop fiddling with your OS for 5 minutes and get them up and running. 
The community for Debian is quite small these days so it generally lags behind other distros which is why most Deb fans switch to Ubuntu.
CommanderJameson said:
LordGrover said:
The last.
Does it come with a compiler? Maybe worth having another crack at it then.
Comes with GCC and a full, professional IDE - XCode.Does it come with a compiler? Maybe worth having another crack at it then.
There's a couple of approaches to getting all that open source goodness, Fink and DarwinPorts.
Due to my Debian approach, I prefer Fink.
The other approach is to download the source, configure make and install! Only a few source packages need a patch here or there, which is what MacPorts and Fink handle for you.
And you can have both Fink and MacPorts on the same box. I have, and they work independently, no confusion.
qube_TA said:
CommanderJameson said:
qube_TA said:
...Debian etc are for freaks who get off fiddling with their operating system rather than actually doing anything productive,
That's total boocks. I selected Debian as my (email/web proxy/webmail) server because it requires me to do the least actual work to achieve any given task.Gentoo I know nothing about, so you might have a point there.
ocks installing a package on Linux is pretty much the same on any distro, the command might vary (apt-get, yum, yast, smart etc) but the amount of 'work' you have to do is identical to get them working, that is if you can stop fiddling with your OS for 5 minutes and get them up and running. The community for Debian is quite small these days so it generally lags behind other distros which is why most Deb fans switch to Ubuntu.
1. Debian installs the package and, crucially, configures it for you. This reduces the amount of farting about, post-install, you have to do. As an IT person, you should be sympathetic to this idea; as it is, you seem to be too busy pigeonholing people as "freaks" when, in reality, you're geeking-out more than they are. But hey, knock yourself out. If manual configuration of Postfix blows your hair back, who am I to argue?
2. yum/apt/yast etc do broadly similar things in principle but the practical reality is that apt is streets ahead of everything else out there. Yum is slow, yast is complex, and neither configure things properly post-install, leaving you with all the tedious geeky work that you seem to object to.
3. The community for Debian isn't actually small at all. There's a huge amount of crossover between Ubuntu and Debian (whodathunkit?) and Debian's "unstable" and "experimental" branches are right on the bleeding edge. "Stable" is, well, stable.
On the other hand, I've done work as UNIX, VMS, Linux and Windows admin (thankfully all in the past; IT is shit-boring, really) and the single biggest timesink in terms of messing around with the OS is Windows, especially once you get into server applications.
qube_TA said:
The community for Debian is quite small these days so it generally lags behind other distros which is why most Deb fans switch to Ubuntu.
I disagree. It doesn't really lag behind, they just prefer to wait a bit longer for later versions of packages to be included in stable, but if you want newer package versions just use an unstable/testing distro. The name doesn't actually mean it's unstable and will break.I've been running a 64 bit Debian "unstable" on a dual Opteron server at home for over two years without a single issue.
You'd only want to run something like Ubuntu if you want a desktop. Debian is primarily a server OS, hence why it doesn't come with all the cruft out of the box. A server doesn't need a GUI and all the extras that go with, so the base install doesn't install it. If you want it, it's a simple apt-get away.
CommanderJameson said:
Nonsense from beginning to end.
1. Debian installs the package and, crucially, configures it for you. This reduces the amount of farting about, post-install, you have to do. As an IT person, you should be sympathetic to this idea; as it is, you seem to be too busy pigeonholing people as "freaks" when, in reality, you're geeking-out more than they are. But hey, knock yourself out. If manual configuration of Postfix blows your hair back, who am I to argue?
2. yum/apt/yast etc do broadly similar things in principle but the practical reality is that apt is streets ahead of everything else out there. Yum is slow, yast is complex, and neither configure things properly post-install, leaving you with all the tedious geeky work that you seem to object to.
3. The community for Debian isn't actually small at all. There's a huge amount of crossover between Ubuntu and Debian (whodathunkit?) and Debian's "unstable" and "experimental" branches are right on the bleeding edge. "Stable" is, well, stable.
On the other hand, I've done work as UNIX, VMS, Linux and Windows admin (thankfully all in the past; IT is shit-boring, really) and the single biggest timesink in terms of messing around with the OS is Windows, especially once you get into server applications.
1st, chill I was poking fun in jest it's important to have a rivalry between distros (I bet you had an Atari ST instead of an Amiga), 2nd we're all freaks n nerds, we use *nix FFS!, 3rd I've to look after machines running BSD, OpenSUSE, SLES, RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu (about 2000 running Ubu Dapper) & Solaris with a hint of AS400 thrown in for good measure (thankfully no MS anymore), keeping things simple to avoid messing about is a priority as pissing about day in and day out is tedious and boring (why do you think I post so much on here?!) so I know where you're are coming from.1. Debian installs the package and, crucially, configures it for you. This reduces the amount of farting about, post-install, you have to do. As an IT person, you should be sympathetic to this idea; as it is, you seem to be too busy pigeonholing people as "freaks" when, in reality, you're geeking-out more than they are. But hey, knock yourself out. If manual configuration of Postfix blows your hair back, who am I to argue?
2. yum/apt/yast etc do broadly similar things in principle but the practical reality is that apt is streets ahead of everything else out there. Yum is slow, yast is complex, and neither configure things properly post-install, leaving you with all the tedious geeky work that you seem to object to.
3. The community for Debian isn't actually small at all. There's a huge amount of crossover between Ubuntu and Debian (whodathunkit?) and Debian's "unstable" and "experimental" branches are right on the bleeding edge. "Stable" is, well, stable.
On the other hand, I've done work as UNIX, VMS, Linux and Windows admin (thankfully all in the past; IT is shit-boring, really) and the single biggest timesink in terms of messing around with the OS is Windows, especially once you get into server applications.
I've been using Linux for 8 years now, started on Debian I know it fairly well but have always found it long winded to set up.
Apt isn't doing any additional post setting up that RPM wouldn't do (create users, append startup scripts etc), the way a bit of software is configured depends upon how the package was built not by the package manager that was used to install it afterwards. Personally I'm not a fan of custom packages as it makes upgrades n such a PITA so will only do it if I need to, building a DEB or RPM is as much of a mucheness as conceptually they're identical, programs like YaST, YUM or Smart are just frontends to help you manage repositories and auto fix dependencies etc. But as you may know Apt comes with RH/SUSE etc although not installed by default if you really want to use it. You're welcome to show me something Apt does that would cause a user of an RPM based distro frustration.
But on a whole I like Linux regardless of what flavour it is but if you're new to it having a lot of manual intervention to get it up and running can put you off, also if you were hosting customer data and offering strict SLA's you'd not want to use software that comes with absolutely no warranty which in my book renders Debian obsolete for most of what people do (it would be far more popular otherwise)
qube_TA said:
also if you were hosting customer data and offering strict SLA's you'd not want to use software that comes with absolutely no warranty which in my book renders Debian obsolete for most of what people do (it would be far more popular otherwise)
I can't think, off-hand, of any software - proprietary or otherwise - that DOES come with a warranty. This is the usual form of words:
Windows Server 2003 EULA said:
12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE THE SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES (IF ANY) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) IMPLIED WARRANTIES, DUTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF RELIABILITY OR AVAILABILITY, OF ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, OF RESULTS, OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, OF LACK OF VIRUSES, AND OF LACK OF NEGLIGENCE, ALL WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
Oh, and then there's the "if it eats your babies, we're not liable" bit:Windows Server 2003 EULA said:
13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED HEREIN AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES IN CONTRACT OR ANYTHING ELSE), THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY HEREUNDER SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGES YOU INCUR IN REASONABLE RELIANCE ON THE SOFTWARE UP TO THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE OR US$5.00. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS (INCLUDING SECTIONS 12, 13 AND 14) SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
A quick peek at the Oracle and Java EULAs reveals similar clauses. I'm willing to bet that Solaris, AIX, OpenVMS, SAP, DB/2 and any other enterprise platform you care to name also have them in their EULAs.14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED HEREIN AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES IN CONTRACT OR ANYTHING ELSE), THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY HEREUNDER SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGES YOU INCUR IN REASONABLE RELIANCE ON THE SOFTWARE UP TO THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE OR US$5.00. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS (INCLUDING SECTIONS 12, 13 AND 14) SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Edited by CommanderJameson on Friday 3rd August 15:29
Disclaimers to stop them being sued however if I'm running Windows or Sun etc if there is a problem it's supported by the people that distribute it, if their patches or software cause problems then they'll fix it, it'll affect them if they don't. Community Linux' create patches n such out of the kindness of their heart as there's no agreement in place.
If I'm running a cluster with say SLES on it and it screws up as a result of a patch or something then I'll have Novell if needed on hand to get it back up and running ASAP, with a community distro you're on your own hoping that someone will look at your bug report sometime soon.
99.9% of the time you'd never need outside help but if you're pitching for say a £70K managed hosting contract with an SLA which will bite you if something goes wrong then it's reassuring to have that support behind you.
If I'm running a cluster with say SLES on it and it screws up as a result of a patch or something then I'll have Novell if needed on hand to get it back up and running ASAP, with a community distro you're on your own hoping that someone will look at your bug report sometime soon.
99.9% of the time you'd never need outside help but if you're pitching for say a £70K managed hosting contract with an SLA which will bite you if something goes wrong then it's reassuring to have that support behind you.
The same goes for every version of Linux though, except RHEL. You can still offer an SLA on something non-proprietary if you are good enough and you can indeed buy support for Debian. An SLA is just a trade-off rather than a guarantee.
Saying Debian is obsolete is ridiculous, it's the same as every other distribution, Linux is just a kernel.
Saying Debian is obsolete is ridiculous, it's the same as every other distribution, Linux is just a kernel.
cottonfoo said:
The same goes for every version of Linux though, except RHEL. You can still offer an SLA on something non-proprietary if you are good enough and you can indeed buy support for Debian. An SLA is just a trade-off rather than a guarantee.
Saying Debian is obsolete is ridiculous, it's the same as every other distribution, Linux is just a kernel.
Groan I love it how folk pick and choose snippets of what someone says just so they can argue back.Saying Debian is obsolete is ridiculous, it's the same as every other distribution, Linux is just a kernel.
This is getting off topic from the OP, I said that when dealing with non-technical customers who will pay you lots of money for a Linux solution you have to offer SLA's which are easier to back up if you're using enterprise Linux such as Redhat's RHEL or Novell's SLES. For a new user that's never used Linux before you wouldn't recommend Debian as it's too involved for someone who's never used it. Which is why I said from my point of view Debian is obsolete as Linux has moved on.
Yes I know Linux is the kernel not the software you're splitting hairs, you know each distro heavily patches the kernel to make their own, they're not all the same.
qube_TA said:
99.9% of the time you'd never need outside help but if you're pitching for say a £70K managed hosting contract with an SLA which will bite you if something goes wrong then it's reassuring to have that support behind you.
But you don't. It's all a myth for the most part. A Windows box blows up and the usual reboot doesn't fix it. The app vendor points at Microsoft, Microsoft points at the app vendor (it they'll point at anyone). You do the little dance of pass the buck and pray the SLA you're being held too won't bite too hard, whilst pouring through logs/diagnostics/BSOD's to see just what the hell DID actually happen. Then you deploy google, because, hell, app vendor won't say owt and MS tell you to get stuffed regardless of just how much cash they've got out of you for 'support' and licensing. Technet and such often have registry edits on them. Telephone support is on record as saying hand editing the registry puts you in an unsupportable position, so either way you're still screwed. So that leaves you with forums, newsgroups, pure dumb luck and raw talent.
Which is pretty much all you've got with a 'community' distro.
If the US government can't bring enough firepower to bear to make Microsoft behave itself, just what hope do you think your poxy little company (which would be 99% of all businesses compared to that that monster) can do to ring an answer/support out of them? They'll either revoke all your licenses or just go for a war of attrition and let you bankrupt yourselves.
Well I've just installed debian. Downloaded an ISO image wrote it onto CD and installed it onto the PII 350 we had kicking around. I've found it extreamly easy to use apt-get to install things not included on the ISO image that i needed to make the companies software work so I could play with it(sysstat etc).
As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
The gfx card is an Nvidia GeForce2 MX. Now I tried downloading some drivers from the Nvidia site and it told me to persist off. The page it took me to was http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1....
But this driver refuses to install as it works out it's not going to support the card. Now I can go back in the archive, and the latest one I can find that supports the GeForce2 MX is on this page: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_1.0-312...
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
The gfx card is an Nvidia GeForce2 MX. Now I tried downloading some drivers from the Nvidia site and it told me to persist off. The page it took me to was http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1....
But this driver refuses to install as it works out it's not going to support the card. Now I can go back in the archive, and the latest one I can find that supports the GeForce2 MX is on this page: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_1.0-312...
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
Munter said:
Well I've just installed debian. Downloaded an ISO image wrote it onto CD and installed it onto the PII 350 we had kicking around. I've found it extreamly easy to use apt-get to install things not included on the ISO image that i needed to make the companies software work so I could play with it(sysstat etc).
As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
The gfx card is an Nvidia GeForce2 MX. Now I tried downloading some drivers from the Nvidia site and it told me to persist off. The page it took me to was http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1....
But this driver refuses to install as it works out it's not going to support the card. Now I can go back in the archive, and the latest one I can find that supports the GeForce2 MX is on this page: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_1.0-312...
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
Try this:As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
The gfx card is an Nvidia GeForce2 MX. Now I tried downloading some drivers from the Nvidia site and it told me to persist off. The page it took me to was http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1....
But this driver refuses to install as it works out it's not going to support the card. Now I can go back in the archive, and the latest one I can find that supports the GeForce2 MX is on this page: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_1.0-312...
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
apt-cache search nvidia legacy
look for something similar to:
nvidia-glx-legacy
I'm on Ubuntu but I can't imagine Debian not having deb's for the legacy drivers. Assuming they do and you can find them:
su (become root) or sudo (and on the same line)
apt-get install nvidia-glx-legacy
It should pull in all needed dependancies.
qube_TA said:
True, but if it helps you get your contact then it works for me.
As you know it's harder to sell a tech solution to a techie.
Very true, but anyone looking to buy in for £70k+ of off-site hosting/data centre space is going to have their own tech advisor kicking around. Besides, everyone in the industry knows phrases like "Backed by Microsoft" "Microsoft Gold Partner" and such are about as much use as saying "Our IT director is Mickey Mouse" As you know it's harder to sell a tech solution to a techie.
Still, I'll, grant you, it does look good on the brocure and it does give the sales drones something to spout.
Edited by ThePassenger on Friday 3rd August 21:28
We do a lot of what we call 'managed hosting' where the customer pays for the service but doesn't get involved in how it works. It makes a lot of money over simple hosting. Enterprise Linux is very important in getting those contracts.
The Novell/MS partnership is also useful where I have to have systems that use both Linux and Windows.
The Novell/MS partnership is also useful where I have to have systems that use both Linux and Windows.
Munter said:
Well I've just installed debian. Downloaded an ISO image wrote it onto CD and installed it onto the PII 350 we had kicking around. I've found it extreamly easy to use apt-get to install things not included on the ISO image that i needed to make the companies software work so I could play with it(sysstat etc).
As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
LOL, you state that Debian was easy to install then state that it's not working properly and you don't know how to fix it!As standard it's installed a gnome windows interface. Problem is it's in 640x480.... Now how do I change that. (As 90% of what i'm doing is through telnet it's not a big problem but damnit I want to change it!)
This is not as easy a selection as the ".run" files. Any hints as to which files to try?
Where's my surprised face?
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff