[CentOS] Troubles for an non-IT beginner

[Parshwa Murdia]

 On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Digimer <linux at alteeve.com> wrote:

The kernel is, if I recall correctly, 2.6.18 that has only been patched
> to fix bugs and security features. The modern kernel is 2.6.37, and a
> *lot* of hardware has come along in the years in between. For example,
> it's unlikely that things like bluetooth, most wireless interfaces,
> modern video cards, etc, will work.
>
> Another option, if you are concerned about the short life cycle of
> Fedora, would be to look at Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. The 'LTS' means "Long Term
> Support" and will be supported for a fairly long time. 10.04 was
> released last April, so it will be quite up to date.


Okay, as seem Ubuntu is supposed to have a longer life.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Cameron Kerr <cameron at humbledown.org>wrote:

Doesn't have stability!? News to me (at least for Ubuntu). Seriously though,
> you would probably find that a Fedora or Ubuntu would support your desktop
> hardware (particularly things like Wireless and Graphics card) much better
> than a distribution aimed at servers. It's also a lot more newbie friendly.
>

Okay, but my meaning to say was that it has an end of life every six months.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

Note that ubuntu has an 'LTS" (long term support) version that splits the
> difference between the really fast moving releases and ones that go
> unchanged
> for a decade.  I was pleasantly surprised a short time ago when I fired up
> my
> dual-boot laptop into an old install of ubuntu 8.04LTS and it asked if I
> wanted
> to upgrade to the newer 10.4LTS release, then proceeded to do it,
> automatically
> and successfully.
>
> There are, however, big differences in administration commands between
> Ubuntu
> and Centos - but if you are just starting out that probably doesn't matter.
>

Yes, and one main difference could be that Cent OS might serve purpose
better for servers.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:

RedHat does back port drivers, at least 'essential' ones.  But yes, much
> 'bleeding edge' hardware might not be supported.


My PC is for home purpose only and I have only a small hardward - just
speakers, a printer (Samsung printer), one net connection, one flatron
screen with an assemble CPU having Inter Core 2 duo processor, 2 GB ram and
250 GB hard-disk. Speakers are frequently used and nothing else. In this
scenario, I hope that all the drivers red hat might be supporting as it is
the minimal of a computer sys., now in this bleeding edge technology era!

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:

In theory yes.  The thing is the 'minimal install' would be very
> minimal indeed.  Probably no GUI or any of the other 'goodies' you
> might expect to have.  This would be fine for a fairly experienced IT
> person, but might be somewhat 'hard' for a novice user.
>
> If can only manage to download *one* *CD* (either can't deal with a DVD
> or don't want to download 7 CDs), then you should download the
> netinstall CD.  This is actually a very *small* iso image.  Assuming you
> have a decent Internet connection, the netinstall CD can install
> packages directly from the Internet.
>

Ok I try one way.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:

It is good for:
>
> 1) Taking a 'test drive' to see if linux is something you want to
> pursue.  Or to demostrate Linux to people who might not have seen or
> used Linux -- it is easier to lug a CD than a whole computer.
>
> 2) To use as a multifunction rescue system.
>
> 3) To use Linux on a machine that Linux cannot be installed on (eg not
> your machine).
>
> 4) To see if Linux will work on the machine in question before
> committing to installing on it.  Can be used to test Linux compatibity
> with store display models, for example.


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Michael Klinosky <mpk2 at enter.net> wrote:

It's meant to be used to test if the distro likes your system, or test
> if you like the distro.
>
> Do you know what a 'Live CD' is? Boot your computer from it; it'll run
> the OS - but only in RAM or from the CD. It won't change anything on
> your hard drive.



Oh I see, this is really good option Linux has provided!

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

CentOS will work for desktop use but it is not ideal, especially as it gets
> older.  With only a few exceptions, the support updates have only bug and
> security fixes to the package versions shipped in the original release of
> the
> major distribution version number without adding new features.  This is a
> good
> thing if you run servers with a lot of your own programming that depends on
> the
> exact behavior of the libraries from that version, but it is a lot less
> important for an individual user that wants the newest features from all of
> the
> available packages.
>
> If you still want CentOS and aren't in a big hurry, you might wait for the
> CentOS6 release which should be coming soon.  CentOS 5.x has packages from
> around the Fedora 6 era.  CentOS 6 should jump that up to be similar to
> Fedora 14.



Nice, Cent OS 6 would be releasing by the Jan end or Feb, I think....?
Another important thing I have is that like you are suggesting for Fedora or
Ubuntu but that the newest cutting edge technology could be installed in the
older hardware assuming that the hardware has minimal composition, like,
only 2 gb ram, hard disk and speaker, with keyboard and a non-usb mouse. In
this hardware too we can install any cutting edge OS like fedora or it
really depends on the hardware that if it would accept a particular distro
or not!

--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110116/4def97a3/attachment.html>