I'm beginner with Linux... I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
Best regards...
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 04:51:54PM -0800, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
Define "compatible". RH9 is very very *very* old. It's from 2003. It got replace with Fedora. To confuse you, "RedHat Enterprise Linux" (RHEL) is a not the same as "RedHat Linux" (RH). CentOS follows RHEL. RHEL 2.1 was approximately RH7. RHEL3 ~= RH9. RHEL6 ~= Fedora 12.
So some of the ideas (eg "rpm") are the same, but because it's old many of the details will be wrong.
Am 13.02.2013 um 01:59 schrieb Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 04:51:54PM -0800, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
Define "compatible". RH9 is very very *very* old. It's from 2003. It got replace with Fedora. To confuse you, "RedHat Enterprise Linux" (RHEL) is a not the same as "RedHat Linux" (RH). CentOS follows RHEL. RHEL 2.1 was approximately RH7. RHEL3 ~= RH9. RHEL6 ~= Fedora 12.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#History
-- LF
On 2/12/2013 7:51 PM, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I'm beginner with Linux... I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
Ahhh.... easy confusion. Red Hat Linux was a bit less Enterprise oriented. If I recall, Red Hat 9 was out about the same time the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.x was out. That became known as RHEL for short. CentOS is a clone of RHEL. So, CentOS 6 is the latest from Redhat other than the Fedora project.
In summary, most of that book will have good information, in particular the basics, but it is very old at this point. I suppose around 10 years old now. That book will not cover a number of things that have been added into CentOS 6.
On 2/12/2013 4:51 PM, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I'm beginner with Linux... I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
not really.
Red Hat Linux is ancient. 9 was the short lived final version, in 2003. after RHL 9 came RH Enterprise Linux 2.1, then RHEL 3, then 4, 5, and now RHEL 6, which is rebuilt as CentOS 6.
so that book is describing a version of linux that is from 10 years ago, an eternity in computer software evolution. the most basic usermode shell commands will be somewhat the same.
John R Pierce <pierce@...> writes:
On 2/12/2013 4:51 PM, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I'm beginner with Linux... I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
not really.
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP> I started with Red Hat Linux 5 in 1998. Mind your manners when calling RHL 9 ancient or I'll come over and hit you with my walker.
Advice to OP: Don't spend much money on treeware books about Linux in general or CentOS in particular. The technology moves fast enough that the book will be obsolete in six months to a year. I work best with real books because I can easily dog-ear, underline, highlight, mark, etc. so I understand liking a real book.
If you really want to have a real book, take the time to visit a local book store that has a decent selection of technical books and page through some of the books there to see which author's style fits you. If you can afford it, spend the money and support your local book store. If you can't afford it, see what you can find on-line, at a garage or yard sale, etc. Either way, get used to using Google to get answers to your questions. The answer will change over time.
Cheers, Dave
David G. Miller wrote:
John R Pierce <pierce@...> writes:
On 2/12/2013 4:51 PM, Bassem Sossan wrote:
I'm beginner with Linux... I have found a good resource, it's a book called "Beginning Red Hat Linux 9"... the centos's version that I've installed "centos 6"... Is this book may be compatible with Centos 6 ?
not really.
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP> I started with Red Hat Linux 5 in 1998. Mind your manners when calling RHL 9 ancient or I'll come over and hit you with my walker.
That's "tease me about my age, and I'll beat you with my cane". <g> And RH9 was fine - that's what I ran on my firewall/router box for *years*, with few updates.
Advice to OP: Don't spend much money on treeware books about Linux in general or CentOS in particular. The technology moves fast enough that the book will be obsolete in six months to a year.
Yup, it's a problem. However, most stuff really doesn't change, if you're looking at administering it, or working on it (except for N33t k3wl GUIs....).
I work best with real books because I can easily dog-ear, underline, highlight, mark, etc. so I understand liking a real book.
Book molester!
If you really want to have a real book, take the time to visit a local book store that has a decent selection of technical books and page through some of the books there to see which author's style fits you. If you can afford it, spend the money and support your local book store.
<snip> And, of course, almost anything published by O'Reilly is going to be somewhere between good and really good: well-written, knowledgeable, and reliable.
mark "not getting a kickback from them, really!"
On 2/13/2013 7:46 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
That's "tease me about my age, and I'll beat you with my cane". <g> And RH9 was fine - that's what I ran on my firewall/router box for*years*, with few updates.
my home firewall/router box is STILL running something that started life as RHL6 but is heavily hacked up. hasn't ever been broken into, so I've not had a lot of incentive to rip it apart and redo it.
$ uname -a Linux $DOMAIN.com 2.2.24-6.2.3-jrp7 #1 Wed Jan 14 03:17:05 PST 2004 i686 unknown
On 02/13/13 17:53, John R Pierce wrote:
On 2/13/2013 7:46 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
That's "tease me about my age, and I'll beat you with my cane".<g> And RH9 was fine - that's what I ran on my firewall/router box for*years*, with few updates.
my home firewall/router box is STILL running something that started life as RHL6 but is heavily hacked up. hasn't ever been broken into, so I've not had a lot of incentive to rip it apart and redo it.
I started, I think, with either 5 or 5.2 for a firewall router, and ran Bastille Linux on it. Never got invaded, as far as I could tell.
mark
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, David G. Miller dave@davenjudy.org wrote:
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP> I started with Red Hat Linux 5 in 1998. Mind your manners when calling RHL 9 ancient or I'll come over and hit you with my walker.
In computer years, that's like a century ago.
Advice to OP: Don't spend much money on treeware books about Linux in general or CentOS in particular. The technology moves fast enough that the book will be obsolete in six months to a year. I work best with real books because I can easily dog-ear, underline, highlight, mark, etc. so I understand liking a real book.
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
If you really want to have a real book, take the time to visit a local book store that has a decent selection of technical books and page through some of the books there to see which author's style fits you. If you can afford it, spend the money and support your local book store. If you can't afford it, see what you can find on-line, at a garage or yard sale, etc. Either way, get used to using Google to get answers to your questions. The answer will change over time.
It is really unfortunate that neither paper books nor pdf's have developed the technology to easily show you 'just' those changes so you end up starting from scratch every time a developer decides to make some small change. I've always wished for something where you could input the version you know and get a description of the changes between that and some current version.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, David G. Miller dave@davenjudy.org wrote:
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP>
Advice to OP: Don't spend much money on treeware books about Linux in general or CentOS in particular. The technology moves fast enough that
the book
will be obsolete in six months to a year. I work best with real books
because I
can easily dog-ear, underline, highlight, mark, etc. so I understand
liking
a real book.
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
Les, that's what the index is for. <snip>
It is really unfortunate that neither paper books nor pdf's have developed the technology to easily show you 'just' those changes so you end up starting from scratch every time a developer decides to make some small change. I've always wished for something where you could input the version you know and get a description of the changes between that and some current version.
The good ones *do* tell you that, in examples, in appendices, on the CD they give you....
mark
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
Les, that's what the index is for.
Never works. Where do you file the bug report?
It is really unfortunate that neither paper books nor pdf's have developed the technology to easily show you 'just' those changes so you end up starting from scratch every time a developer decides to make some small change. I've always wished for something where you could input the version you know and get a description of the changes between that and some current version.
The good ones *do* tell you that, in examples, in appendices, on the CD they give you....
Maybe, if you only need to bump one version at a time. I tend to remember things from 10 versions back better than last week's. And I get grumpy when I still have instances of those that have been running perfectly well for years, mostly with no attention, yet someone thinks they have to change it in incompatible ways.
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@...> writes:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, David G. Miller <dave@...> wrote:
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP> I started with Red Hat Linux 5 in 1998. Mind your manners when calling RHL 9 ancient or I'll come over and hit you with my walker.
In computer years, that's like a century ago.
<SNIP> I guess that means the IBM and CDC mainframes I started out on in the '70s and '80s were prehistoric. Funny thing is that an application I helped write in the early 1980s was still being used by the customer in the mid-1990s (long story how I found out). It had been ported from the original platform (IBM S/370) to a SUN workstation and the customer still loved it. Wouldn't surprise me if they aren't still using it. After all, they still fly B-52s that are even older.
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
<SNIP> Agree with one of the other responders about that's what the index is for. One of my "tests" for a book on the subject is to go to the index and see how easy it is to find the answers to some of the questions I have that have moved me to buy a book on the subject.
Cheers, Dave
David G. Miller wrote:
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@...> writes:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, David G. Miller <dave@...> wrote:
Red Hat Linux is ancient.
<SNIP> I started with Red Hat Linux 5 in 1998. Mind your manners when calling RHL 9 ancient or I'll come over and hit you with my walker.
In computer years, that's like a century ago.
<SNIP> I guess that means the IBM and CDC mainframes I started out on in the '70s and '80s were prehistoric. Funny thing is that an application I helped
write
in the early 1980s was still being used by the customer in the mid-1990s
(long
story how I found out). It had been ported from the original platform (IBM
Yep. 370, timeshare, 4300's....
S/370) to a SUN workstation and the customer still loved it. Wouldn't surprise me if they aren't still using it. After all, they still fly B-52s that are even older.
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
<SNIP> Agree with one of the other responders about that's what the index is for. One of my "tests" for a book on the subject is to go to the index and see how easy it is to find the answers to some of the questions I have that have moved me to buy a book on the subject.
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
mark
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
<SNIP> Agree with one of the other responders about that's what the index is for. One of my "tests" for a book on the subject is to go to the index and see how easy it is to find the answers to some of the questions I have that have moved me to buy a book on the subject.
If you know the right question ahead of time you probably really don't need the book.
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
On the other hand, if you wrote a perl program following those examples, it would almost certainly still run today, with the only change it might need being to escape @ symbols that you had in double-quoted strings. That's pretty rare.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
But real books don't have that 'search' box up at the top...
<SNIP> Agree with one of the other responders about that's what the index is for. One of my "tests" for a book on the subject is to go to the index
and
see how easy it is to find the answers to some of the questions I have that have moved me to buy a book on the subject.
If you know the right question ahead of time you probably really don't need the book.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, you know *something* the book covers, but not all, or not nearly all. You can look for answers to stuff you've had trouble solving.
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
On the other hand, if you wrote a perl program following those examples, it would almost certainly still run today, with the only change it might need being to escape @ symbols that you had in double-quoted strings. That's pretty rare.
Well, yes. And I can do the same with my favorite language of all, ANSI C.
Breaking a language, unless there's no other answer, is NOT something I have any sympathy with, he says, remembering how ever sub-release of python 10-12 years ago would break previous system scripts, or then there's ruby now....
mark "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our language, but in our code"
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
On the other hand, if you wrote a perl program following those examples, it would almost certainly still run today, with the only change it might need being to escape @ symbols that you had in double-quoted strings. That's pretty rare.
Well, yes. And I can do the same with my favorite language of all, ANSI C.
Umm, yeah - now. In 1987 when perl was released you'd have been using K&R C which needed some changes when compilers started demanding the syntax from the ANSI changes. Or worse, some compiler with it's own unique syntax.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
On the other hand, if you wrote a perl program following those examples, it would almost certainly still run today, with the only change it might need being to escape @ symbols that you had in double-quoted strings. That's pretty rare.
Well, yes. And I can do the same with my favorite language of all, ANSI C.
Umm, yeah - now. In 1987 when perl was released you'd have been using K&R C which needed some changes when compilers started demanding the syntax from the ANSI changes. Or worse, some compiler with it's own unique syntax.
And I forgot my favorite issue with 'C': a failing 'include' is fatal. So, even though the language is mostly portable you can't, within the language, write code that will compile across systems that provide different include files. So you have to use some other less portable preprocessing toolset to get your code to a point where the compiler has a chance of accepting it - something that has turned into one of the most arcane arts you are likely to ever see.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Reminds me of the *only* O'Reilly book I didn't like: I think it was Larry's original book on Perl - the index was *dreadful*, couldn't find anything.
On the other hand, if you wrote a perl program following those examples, it would almost certainly still run today, with the only change it might need being to escape @ symbols that you had in double-quoted strings. That's pretty rare.
Well, yes. And I can do the same with my favorite language of all, ANSI C.
Umm, yeah - now. In 1987 when perl was released you'd have been using K&R C which needed some changes when compilers started demanding the syntax from the ANSI changes. Or worse, some compiler with it's own unique syntax.
True... but in '87, I was still on mainframes, and using *GAG* DOS/VSE/SP (and whatever letters have been added since). I didn't get to use C until '89, and perl... no one had heard of it were I was working in TX until about '92 or '93.
Yes, I did start with K&R, and have my copy of the Bible (K&R, ANSI version). Syntax on languages shouldn't change, anyway....
mark
-
Bassem Sossan -
David G. Miller -
John Hinton -
John R Pierce -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
mark
-
Stephen Harris