which linux to go for

which linux to go for

[Danny Keogh]

Ok guys you've all probably been asked this hundreds of times before but 
here goes.  I know there's 3 main linux distributions out there but which 
one's the best?  Maybe that's too open a question.  What's the main 
differences between the 3 might be more what I'm after?

Thanks in advance

Danny Keogh
ICQ:  72503517
mailto:dwkeogh@optushome.com.au

Re: which linux to go for

[Thomas Ward]

Hi, well, I would recommend strongly going with Slackware 8. Slackware 8 has
been the distribution I have felt most happiest with.
Slackware uses the tgz package system, comes with the stable 2.95.3 gcc
compilers, native Speakup support for installation and post-installation,
choice of 2.4.5 or 2.2.19 kernel, and a host of speech friendly apps.
Some of my favorite apps are hangman game, mpg123, Workbone, sox, Emacs,
lynx, pine, sc, and others.


I've also used Red Hat versions 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 7.0, and 7.1 but my interest
has faded. Red Hat 7.1 uses rpm package maniger which can at times be
troublesome, uses the gcc 2.96 compilers which I don't like, comes with the
2.4.2 kernel and there is an update for 2.4.3.12kernel, and many of the same
apps as Slackware. However, it doesn't come with some apps like hangman,
mpg123, or Workbone.
The standard release  of Red Hat doesn't have native Speakup support, but I
believe Bill has a modified release that does.
However, Red Hat has some nice config utilities  that Slackware lacks such
as linuxconf, sndconfig, and a couple of others.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Keogh" <dwkeogh@optushome.com.au>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: which linux to go for


> Ok guys you've all probably been asked this hundreds of times before but
> here goes.  I know there's 3 main linux distributions out there but which
> one's the best?  Maybe that's too open a question.  What's the main
> differences between the 3 might be more what I'm after?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Danny Keogh
> ICQ:  72503517
> mailto:dwkeogh@optushome.com.au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: which linux to go for

[Buddy Brannan]

Hangman?

It just gave me two non words!!!!
-- 
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV    | From the pines down to the projects,
Email: davros@ycardz.com | Life pushes up through the cracks.
Phone: (972) 276-6360    | And it's only going forward,
ICQ: 36621210            | And it's never going back.--Small Potatoes

Re: which linux to go for

[Shaun Oliver]

hi daniel. instead of me trying to tell you which distro to try over
another, I would suggest you consider what you want to do with it.
as far as I can make out, debian and slackware are geared towards software
developers and those who want to run servers.
as far as redhat or mandrake is concerned, if I were to look at it from a
sutes users point of view, I would say that those 2 distros are designed
with ease of use in mind. however, running a server with those distros
isn't uncommon either.
I probably sound like I'm talking a wholo load of rubish at the moment and
someone please pick me up on this if I am.
I'd just read on a little while and look around on the various sites and
consider what you want from your linux system.


-- 


Shaun

I never made a mistake in my life.
I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
                -- Lucy Van Pelt

email: shauno@goanna.net.au
icq: 76958435

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Danny Keogh wrote:

> Ok guys you've all probably been asked this hundreds of times before but 
> here goes.  I know there's 3 main linux distributions out there but which 
> one's the best?  Maybe that's too open a question.  What's the main 
> differences between the 3 might be more what I'm after?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Danny Keogh
> ICQ:  72503517
> mailto:dwkeogh@optushome.com.au
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: which linux to go for

[Kirk Wood]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Danny Keogh wrote:
> Ok guys you've all probably been asked this hundreds of times before but 
> here goes.  I know there's 3 main linux distributions out there but which 
> one's the best?  Maybe that's too open a question.  What's the main 
> differences between the 3 might be more what I'm after?

The best is the one you are comfortable with.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missle at
a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
	- President George Bush

Re: which linux to go for

[Kirk Wood]

Moving from the easy, go with the one your comfortable with, I will
address some things from Tommy's post, and give my views on some things.

First, don't chose a distro based on what apps are installed by
default. The lack of mpg123, or some other app is not a reason to chose
another distro. First, you can install any app on any distro. Second, you
can get rpms for just about any app you find if it is popular in the
slightest bit. The RedHat Package Manager (rpm) is one of the two strong
points for RedHat. The fact is that you can easily install and uninstall a
huge number of apps with this. It will make sure you have the requisite
stuff and also keep you from breaking things when you uninstal stuff.

Moving from there, my favorite is Debian. It has a package manager that I
find more comprehensive then RPM. While the text version of rpm just tells
you that a package can't be installed, and what is missing, debian gives
you a chance to choose to install any needed package right then and
there. It also has good utilities to get updatees on the things you have
installed. Again, you can install just about any app with this
system. There are converters to use slackware install files and redhat
install files.

Then there is slackware. It has its own manager to install programs. It
has utilities to convert from other formats. It will easily let you
install packages whith missing dependencies. This can be good and bad. But
this is missing the real heart of slackware. The real heart (and
departure) is that slackweare uses a bsd style init while most others use
systemV (system 5). What is the difference? hmm, one is bare bones and the
other is script deluxe.

In a systemv systenm, you will find scripts to start, stop and restart all
the services in the /etc/init.d (or /etc/rc.d/init.d) directory. You want
to restart your smb services? type "/etc/init.d/smb restart" and it takes
care of itself. Slackware, you need to know more about the service and do
so manually. Which is better? I prefer systemv. Others prefer bsd. I guess
it is like the ice cream debate on what flavor is best.

Now going back to my original advice. Go with the one your comfortable
with. Thus if you have nothing to go by, ask arround. Use the distro that
your buddy who is willing to answer your question at midnight uses. The
reason is rather simple, he will be able to give you a much more coherant
answer to the system he uses. In fact, use the same version of distro he
uses. When you are ready strike out on your own, go for it.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missle at
a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
	- President George Bush

Re: which linux to go for

[Tony Baechler]

Hello.  The following are strictly my opinions from a novice admin
perspective.  I mean that I have used a form of Unix for years but never
set up my own Linux box before.  With that said, there are three main
choices.  Slackware, Debian, and Red Hat.  I have no experience at all
with Red Hat but have read that various config tools require graphics, so
I would stay away from it for now.  I fought with Debian for many months
and installs but could never get it to work.  Either the kernel would
crash, the modules would not load, the drivers could not be found, or the
base packages were incomplete or missing.  Yes I read the instructions and
I downloaded everything as I was supposed to.  It could not support either
my network (cable with dhcp) or CD drives.  I gave up in complete
frustration.

By comparison, Slackware was easy.  There are three different
distributions of Slack to look at.  There is the main version like what
you would buy on CD.  It is designed for a native Linux system and
supports most standard hardware.  It now includes a Speakup enabled
kernel, the others do not.  This is new with 8.0.  It is smaller to
download.  You can either get the ISO images and make your own CDs or if
you have a fast connection just get all the packages and install what you
need.  I found that by just getting the packages and nothing else it would
easily fit on one CD.  The other is just source code and extras.  The con
is that it comes with fewer packages.  You get basic things like Lynx,
ftp, Mutt, Elm, Pine, the kernel sources, and the like but you do not get
things that are available in Debian.  This is a guess though since I never
got to see enough of Debian to tell.  Also, Slack uses and odd package
format (it is the standard .tgz) which is could for installation
(installpkg filename.tgz) but is not widely supported.  Red Hat by far has
the most out there but Slack supports the rpm format.

The others are for standard DOS/Win systems but let you get your feet wet
while still being fully working implementations of the Linux OS.  One is
Zipspeak which worked very well but I am not sure if it would work now
(8.0 and on, plus the new Speakup) because Speakup requires use of the
proc file system which is not supported by umsdos.  It is lacking many
things such as program development which is almost necessary to do
anything practical.  The other is called Loopspk.  It uses a loop
filesystem but runs from a DOS partition.  Basically it stores the
complete OS in one huge file.  I really like it but it was designed for
the 2.2.16 kernel and the only talking kernel I could find was 2.2.13.  I
had to find an old Zipspeak (7.0 I think) site to get it, and the modules
did not work because of the conflicting versions.  It comes with the
standard tools and I had no problem compiling a few programs with it.
That would be my recommendation if you just want to get your feet wet
without taking the plunge.  I think the minimum space requirement is 180
mb which is a bit big but worth it.

Feel free to correct or modify as you see fit.  Permission to repost on
any other site or mailing list is granted.

watch for heresay

[Kirk Wood]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Tony Baechler wrote:
> ...  I have no experience at all
> with Red Hat but have read that various config tools require graphics, so
> I would stay away from it for now. ...

Sorry, but this is **not** a good thing to say. When you decide something
shouldn't be used because you read somewhere that something is
required. The truth (which hopefully is important) is that every needed
config tool is available in both console and X tools. And guess what?? The
console tool came first like so many other items in the Unix/Linux
world. The X programs are front ends. Perhaps you should ditch the system
because there is also a web front end for the major tool? Basically, we
should refrain from spreading hearsay.
 
The rest of the post was quite refreshingly honest in stating it was based
on personal experiance. While I don't discount the experiance, here is
another view. I have installed Debian, Redhat, and Slackware. The only
distrobution I have had any problems with was Slackware. Once I figured
out my mistake, Slackware was pretty easy.

If you are downloading, then Debian is the smallest distro to get. This is
hands down the truth. The initial download for Debian will always fit in
less then 10 floppys. Debian has tools to create iso images, but doesn't
make them. Their reason is simple: they want to minimize downloading and
every CD they have seen has many packages many people don't want or
need. Instead the software gets what is needed and nothing more.

For the complete novice, RedHat and Debian have the easiest
interfaces. I highly recomend RedHat's linuxconf for ease of use. With the
one program you can do most configuration needed. It comes standard on a
redhat install. It is available for debian and might be for slackware.

Slackware has the highest learning curve for admin. That being said, it is
the easiest to maniputlate on a basic leve. All Linux systems use text
files for their config. Slackware is the easiest to directly modify the
text file.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missle at
a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
	- President George Bush

Re: watch for heresay

[Shaun Oliver]

Hi kirk,
I couldn't agree more.
just because you red somewhere that something requires some other thing
doesn't mean it's totally unuseable.
and yes console came before gui not gui before console.
I think on your thoughts about debian, I might take a look at it and see
how good it is.
I'm currently using slackware 7.1 with the 2.4.4 kernel and the latest cvs
version of speakup
I'm in the process of aquiring slack 8.0 but until then, I'll stick with
this.
I've tried mandrake but I can't really give an oppinion on it because I
was a novis at the time and knew nothing about anything. about linux.
but I might give it a go soon.


-- 


Shaun

I never made a mistake in my life.
I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
                -- Lucy Van Pelt

email: shauno@goanna.net.au
icq: 76958435

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Kirk Wood wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Tony Baechler wrote:
> > ...  I have no experience at all
> > with Red Hat but have read that various config tools require graphics, so
> > I would stay away from it for now. ...
> 
> Sorry, but this is **not** a good thing to say. When you decide something
> shouldn't be used because you read somewhere that something is
> required. The truth (which hopefully is important) is that every needed
> config tool is available in both console and X tools. And guess what?? The
> console tool came first like so many other items in the Unix/Linux
> world. The X programs are front ends. Perhaps you should ditch the system
> because there is also a web front end for the major tool? Basically, we
> should refrain from spreading hearsay.
>  
> The rest of the post was quite refreshingly honest in stating it was based
> on personal experiance. While I don't discount the experiance, here is
> another view. I have installed Debian, Redhat, and Slackware. The only
> distrobution I have had any problems with was Slackware. Once I figured
> out my mistake, Slackware was pretty easy.
> 
> If you are downloading, then Debian is the smallest distro to get. This is
> hands down the truth. The initial download for Debian will always fit in
> less then 10 floppys. Debian has tools to create iso images, but doesn't
> make them. Their reason is simple: they want to minimize downloading and
> every CD they have seen has many packages many people don't want or
> need. Instead the software gets what is needed and nothing more.
> 
> For the complete novice, RedHat and Debian have the easiest
> interfaces. I highly recomend RedHat's linuxconf for ease of use. With the
> one program you can do most configuration needed. It comes standard on a
> redhat install. It is available for debian and might be for slackware.
> 
> Slackware has the highest learning curve for admin. That being said, it is
> the easiest to maniputlate on a basic leve. All Linux systems use text
> files for their config. Slackware is the easiest to directly modify the
> text file.
> 
> =======
> Kirk Wood
> Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> 
> "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missle at
> a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
> 	- President George Bush
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: watch for heresay

[Thomas Ward]

Just a couple of comments here. I used both Slackware 8, and Red Hat, and
played some with Mandrake as well.
As stated earlier linuxconf is a good tool. I like it myself, and the person
who stated that the config tools don't work with speech is wrong.
linuxconf, wvdialconf, sndconfig, and plenty of other config tools under Red
Hat work fine with Speakup.
As for Mandrake getting it setup was a breeze for me, but you will require a
little sighted help resetting the run level from 5 to 3, and probably want
to terminal in until you get the kernel patched with speakup.
However, that said Mandrake wasn't as easy to get going with speech as
Slackware, Red Hat, or the other major distributions.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Oliver" <shauno@goanna.net.au>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: watch for heresay


> Hi kirk,
> I couldn't agree more.
> just because you red somewhere that something requires some other thing
> doesn't mean it's totally unuseable.
> and yes console came before gui not gui before console.
> I think on your thoughts about debian, I might take a look at it and see
> how good it is.
> I'm currently using slackware 7.1 with the 2.4.4 kernel and the latest cvs
> version of speakup
> I'm in the process of aquiring slack 8.0 but until then, I'll stick with
> this.
> I've tried mandrake but I can't really give an oppinion on it because I
> was a novis at the time and knew nothing about anything. about linux.
> but I might give it a go soon.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Shaun
>
> I never made a mistake in my life.
> I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
>                 -- Lucy Van Pelt
>
> email: shauno@goanna.net.au
> icq: 76958435
>
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Kirk Wood wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Tony Baechler wrote:
> > > ...  I have no experience at all
> > > with Red Hat but have read that various config tools require graphics,
so
> > > I would stay away from it for now. ...
> >
> > Sorry, but this is **not** a good thing to say. When you decide
something
> > shouldn't be used because you read somewhere that something is
> > required. The truth (which hopefully is important) is that every needed
> > config tool is available in both console and X tools. And guess what??
The
> > console tool came first like so many other items in the Unix/Linux
> > world. The X programs are front ends. Perhaps you should ditch the
system
> > because there is also a web front end for the major tool? Basically, we
> > should refrain from spreading hearsay.
> >
> > The rest of the post was quite refreshingly honest in stating it was
based
> > on personal experiance. While I don't discount the experiance, here is
> > another view. I have installed Debian, Redhat, and Slackware. The only
> > distrobution I have had any problems with was Slackware. Once I figured
> > out my mistake, Slackware was pretty easy.
> >
> > If you are downloading, then Debian is the smallest distro to get. This
is
> > hands down the truth. The initial download for Debian will always fit in
> > less then 10 floppys. Debian has tools to create iso images, but doesn't
> > make them. Their reason is simple: they want to minimize downloading and
> > every CD they have seen has many packages many people don't want or
> > need. Instead the software gets what is needed and nothing more.
> >
> > For the complete novice, RedHat and Debian have the easiest
> > interfaces. I highly recomend RedHat's linuxconf for ease of use. With
the
> > one program you can do most configuration needed. It comes standard on a
> > redhat install. It is available for debian and might be for slackware.
> >
> > Slackware has the highest learning curve for admin. That being said, it
is
> > the easiest to maniputlate on a basic leve. All Linux systems use text
> > files for their config. Slackware is the easiest to directly modify the
> > text file.
> >
> > =======
> > Kirk Wood
> > Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> >
> > "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missle at
> > a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be
decisive."
> > - President George Bush
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: watch for heresay

[Rodney Clowdus]

Yep Kirk Wood  you hit it right on the money.  Linux is linux regardless
of distro.  If someone does not learn to use the command line and the text
driven configuration files they will never learn Linux regardless of
distro used.  I agree though that some may be easier for beginners to
install than others but once someone learn the ropes it really does not
make much difference which distro to used.  I have yet to see a graphics
program for Linux that allows me complete control of the configuration
files.  More often than not the direct approach is the simplest and the
easiest method to fix a problem or to configure a device.  I have used
Suse, Redhat, Caldera, Slackware, and Debian.  Linux is linux is linux is
linux.  It's dirty work learning how to configure Linux but it's the only
way to go if you want your computer to run like you think it's suppose to
instead of being locked into someone elses fancy electronic cookbook
mentality proprietor.  Long as I can open the hood, grab a wrench and work
on the engine I could care less about the label on the body.
Rodney

The Weaving Beaver
rclowdus@kcnet.com
"Chop your own firewood and it will warm you twice."
"Weave your own cloth and it will reward you twice."

Re: watch for heresay

[Raul A. Gallegos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1673 bytes --]

Kirk Wood said the following on Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 08:48:18AM -0500:
> For the complete novice, RedHat and Debian have the easiest
> interfaces. I highly recomend RedHat's linuxconf for ease of use. With the
> one program you can do most configuration needed. It comes standard on a
> redhat install. It is available for debian and might be for slackware.

So far as I know you can compile and install linuxconf for slackware
but I have not seen a slackware package.  I believe and this is just my 
viewpoint that slackware's approach is to have one edit things manually 
so you can see how things work rather than totally dependig on
automated things to do the work for you.

> Slackware has the highest learning curve for admin. That being said, it is
> the easiest to maniputlate on a basic leve. All Linux systems use text
> files for their config. Slackware is the easiest to directly modify the
> text file.

How very true.  When I learned Linux Slackware was the first distro I
even used.  I personally like to see how thigs are done.  Becuase fo
this I prefer Slackware.  I wonder if being a Unix admin for Sprint has 
something to do with my liking for admin type of configurations for
Slackware.  The real nice thing is I've configured Slackware systems,
left them alone, and as long as I document notes on what I did, I can
leave them alone for months at a time without having to change
anything.

-- 
--- Raul A. Gallegos mailto:raul@asmodean.net http://www.asmodean.net
For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals..  Then
something happened, which unleashed the power of our imagination...
We learned to talk...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 240 bytes --]

Re: watch for heresay

[Shaun Oliver]

you know the other thing I  find helpful on that point?
if you back up your configureation files to another partition of some
other form of media, it'll save having to redo the whole bloody thing when
u want to totally blow it away and redo it from scratch.
a few times I've done this and in all, it's taken me just under 2 hours to
install and configure slackware 7.1
try doing that with windows. not bloody likely.

-- 


Shaun

I never made a mistake in my life.
I thought I did once, but I was wrong.
                -- Lucy Van Pelt

email: shauno@goanna.net.au
icq: 76958435

Re: watch for heresay

[Tony Baechler]

Hello.  I clearly stated that I had never used Red Hat before so had no
experience whatsoever.  Therefore, your comments were unnecessarily harsh.
However, I have read a few FAQs and the like.  Take those for dhcp, for
example.  Yes it can be done with Red Hat but it looks like it is more
complicated if I can read it correctly.  I got working dhcp support right
out of the box with Slackware and got absolutely nowhere with Debian.  In
that howto, it was more or less stated to click on this or that from
within the config tool, so it seems obvious to me that it would be a
graphical config tool.  I have read similar with the rpm tool but I have
looked at a console version.  It seemed confusing so I avoid rpm packages
when I can.  Besides, it is probably better to compile the source rather
than using precompiled binaries in most cases.

Re: watch for heresay

[Frank Carmickle]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Tony Baechler wrote:
> when I can.  Besides, it is probably better to compile the source rather
> than using precompiled binaries in most cases.

I used to think like this.  I have been converted though.  Why should we
all use cpu cycles if were all going to be building the same aps with the
same libs.  This is why I am such a huge fan of Debian.  Most all of the
stuff that anyone will ever want is available in the distribution.  It is
all compiled with the same libs and the dependencies are all taken care of
when you install.  The only time that I ever have to build stuff from
source is when I am working with cvs snapshots of apps that may need cvs
snapshots of other libs.  But the slackware way of just compiling things
when ever you need them or want to upgrade doesn't help anyone else but
myself.  If a package is broken don't just compile the source report
it.  I personally think that it is great for every new user to appreciate
what they have in freesoftware.  I think that this requires a system like
slackware.  This shows the user how much work actually goes in to getting
the system working.  Slackware is very easy to setup.  It's very easy to
configure.  But it's not pretty!  It's dirty!  You may end up with
hundreds of files laying around on your machine from old packages.  Most
of the time you don't even notice.  But if there ever is a problem how the
hell are you going to know what's what.  I like the fact that dpkg knows
about every file on my machine that it put there.  I like the fact that I
can tell it to purge a package and it will remove all of those files from
my machine.  I don't want to realize that I have one version of an app in
/usr/bin and one in /usr/local/bin.  I want a clean system that looks
pretty!  If there are apps that aren't packaged with the distro why not
make debs for them so that others can spend there cpu cycles working on
seti or something.  But it's not about cpu cycles as much as it is my
time.  I don't know how the rest of you feel but I don't like the fact
that I had to become an expert on a lot of packages just to get them to
even work.  I have no desire to understand how print spoolers work.  I use
a printer maybe 4 or 5 times a year.  Well to get a printer working
under slack I had to read the docs over and over and over and I still
didn't get it.  When I wanted to get one working with debian I had to make
a choice between lpr and appsfilter or lprng and magic filter.  I chose
lprng and magic filter.  With in five minutes of running the magic filter
setup utility my printer was working.  This brought me great joy.  And you
know what I actually got other work done that day.  I spent a whole
afternoon one day trying to get my printer working on a slack box.  That
may have been my lack of understanding of a few things or it may have been
that it was actually a lot of work.  Either way this was simple.  I didn't
need to know a thing about how to make it work.  This is frowned on by
folks in this community.  I say it's a good thing.  What isn't a good
thing is not being able to know all of what one might want to know or may
need to know.  Freesoftware is a very beautiful thing.  It gives us the
opportunity to know everything about our software.  Not just some things
but everything.  I may not want to know everything but I will not run
software that I can't know about.  

"Free software" for a better world!

-- 
     Frank Carmickle
phone:     412 761-9568
email:     frankiec@dryrose.com

RE: which linux to go for

[mo.valli]

Danny,

If you have a laptop and are thinking of using PCMCIA devices with kernels
above 2.2.16, go for RedHat 7.1 as Slakware8 doesn't work (at least I can't
get it to work).

Regards

Mo.

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Keogh [mailto:dwkeogh@optushome.com.au]
Sent: 11 October 2001 10:25
To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
Subject: which linux to go for


Ok guys you've all probably been asked this hundreds of times before but 
here goes.  I know there's 3 main linux distributions out there but which 
one's the best?  Maybe that's too open a question.  What's the main 
differences between the 3 might be more what I'm after?

Thanks in advance

Danny Keogh
ICQ:  72503517
mailto:dwkeogh@optushome.com.au


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup