Winblows user pondering jump to Linux....

[Slack]

Although this is not strictly on topic, my name is Slack, so please cut me some. I figured this is the best forum to get answers to my questions.

I'm a current XP Pro user, who has several other networked computers around the house running WinME (the Edsel of OSes). How hard would it be for this Linux neophyte to convert my UT2003 server box to Linux? And then possibly my wife's comp?

I was thinking of purchasing Redhat Personal 8.0 Just for it's easy breezy newbie loving interface. (I'm a father of 1 year old twins with a real life, and limited time to mess around with computers, much less actually play UT2003)

My concerns are,
1) Networking the Linux box to exisiting MS networked computers. Easy? hard? Must I get Redhat's Linux Pro?

2) Portability of UT & UT2003 server and user ini's from Windblows to Linux. I have a lot of mods for map rotation, map vote, logos etc.. that I don't want to finger in again. A cut-n-paste, or outright copy is what I'm looking for. I'm assuming here that Linux will work with FAT32 partitions, and can read DOS/Windows ASCII text files. Yes? No?

3) If I do my wife's box, can the openoffice.org suite that Redhat bundles handle Excel 97 spreadsheets?

Beyond that I'd have no other reservations about moving to Linux. MY primary workstation would remain XP Pro, for now anyway.

Many Thanks In Advance

[CaptnSpliff]

I'm a current XP Pro user, who has several other networked computers around the house running WinME (the Edsel of OSes). How hard would it be for this Linux neophyte to convert my UT2003 server box to Linux? And then possibly my wife's comp?

I was thinking of purchasing Redhat Personal 8.0 Just for it's easy breezy newbie loving interface. (I'm a father of 1 year old twins with a real life, and limited time to mess around with computers, much less actually play UT2003)

Thanks for the background :-) You'll see my reasoning later.

My concerns are,
1) Networking the Linux box to exisiting MS networked computers. Easy? hard? Must I get Redhat's Linux Pro?

Networking to what point? Sharing files, it's not THAT hard, but it's not a one click solution.

2) Portability of UT & UT2003 server and user ini's from Windblows to Linux. I have a lot of mods for map rotation, map vote, logos etc.. that I don't want to finger in again. A cut-n-paste, or outright copy is what I'm looking for. I'm assuming here that Linux will work with FAT32 partitions, and can read DOS/Windows ASCII text files. Yes? No?

If you're using FTP / Network Shares to move files around, I don't suggest using a FAT32 partition, it's not effective nor reliable compared to what linux has on offer.

Linux can easily read ASCII made by Win32.

3) If I do my wife's box, can the openoffice.org suite that Redhat bundles handle Excel 97 spreadsheets?

Ok, here's my answer. NONONNONONONONONO.

You've stated you have little time for fiddling, this is where it's going to hit home. MS's office products do NOT have a good cross platform record. You can spend HOURS and HOURS getting something to work properly, but yet on your XP machine, it just does it.

I do not reccomend replacing something that is working, and important, with someting you don't have the time to devote to :D

However, Linux for file storage and "serving" is good. I have a Z: drive that I regularily dump backups to, I don't think I've rebooted that machine is a good 150+ days. Rock steady. I've also just setup another machine (albeit slow) only for a UT2K3 CTF server. That's all it'll be doing, and assuming the code for UT2K3 is steady, I don't think I'll have to manage the machine for anything less than a hardware failure (DAMN power supplies!)

[PapaDoom]

I think the "is it easy" question is always one of the hardest questions a computer guy faces.

I would say, first off, that you will find Linux (any distribution) to be somewhat more challenging than Windows XP to set up and maintain. Not because the OS is harder to work with as much as it is "different". You probably cut your OS teeth on Windows, and all UNIX derivatives like Linux will require you to grind some gears as you shift your paradigm :D

I got my start in the "real" OS world back 20 years or more ago on UNIX. Despite an interval of nearly 20 years during which I was a Windows guy, Linux was "familiar" to me. So, for me, the install was easy and painless, and keeping the box running has been equally free of major challenges. For you, I'm guessing there would be a steeper learning curve.

My biggest warning: do NOT get Linux thinking it will be "just like Windows". Don't try to make it like Windows. You will have to take the time to learn it, just like you did when you first started out with Microsoft's OS.

And I do not recommend using Linux as a replacement for Windows at the desktop for a novice user. Linux a great server OS, far superior in terms of stability and performance to Windows. It is not, IMHO, the best choice for a desktop OS. My recommendation: keep Windows XP on your wife's personal PC, and on your own desktop. Put Linux on a dedicated server and let it do its thing. I'd prefer not to start a religious debate, but I think my assessment is accurate.

All of that being said, modern Linux installs are close to painless. I've only experienced two distributions: Red Hat and Mandrake. Both were "stick the bootable CD in, answer a few questions, and get a working OS" installs. Of the two, I personally found Mandrake to be more "friendly" to get going, but that's a personal thing.

Good luck!

[Slack]

'Bout what I expected, I realized the wife's computer was a longshot, but she carries very little windows legacy knowledge with her, and if not for the file sharing issue, she might have adapted to unix based os more readily than I. She would never think "Why isn't the control panel (if there is an analog in unix world) here"

I didn't mention it before, but another consideration is my own curiosity, and desire to expose myself to something other than a Bill Gatesian paradigm. I was really interested in BeOs for a while there.

How hard is a dual boot setup, so that I can revert, and get my serer back up if I run out of ambition, and choose to tackle it at a later time?

Failing all of that I may need to put my back up plan into effect. An Office mate has neighbor who is Microsoft Employee = HUGE discounts on software. Perhaps they all become XP boxes in the future. And I pickup an XBox as well :)

[CaptnSpliff]

How hard is a dual boot setup, so that I can revert, and get my serer back up if I run out of ambition, and choose to tackle it at a later time?


LinuxDoc (http://www.linuxdoc.org) has all your FAQ (HOWTO) needs!

I dual boot on my laptop (Win2k and Debian) and have tried on my desktop (Win2k and Debian (See a pattern?)) but have IDE controller issues :-)

If you have spare HDD space and a bit of time, delve into it, but don't jump into it. It takes you a while to get used to it all.

[ApocDeath]

I run a dual boot Win2k Pro and Red Hat 7.3 on my gaming rig... pretty simple to set up with the GRUB bootloader, and I've heard similar things about the LILO bootloader... both come with RedHat 7.3. "Just make sure to install Windows first" was all anyone ever warned me about.

If you have the $$$, I know a few people who swear by the software VMWare... It basically allows you to run another OS while still booted in to your primary OS... Damn sweet for developing cross-platform apps, but pretty expensive from what I hear. I'd also be willing to bet you need a good chunk of memory to run two memory hoggin OS's at once... ;)

[Aimak]

I'm a Mandrake user. Thanks to it i definitively switch to Linux, although I keep a dual boot with Win98.

Tip, never buy a linux distribution before testing it.

You free donwload almost any Linux distribution with no limitations of use. I advise you to try Mandrake v9 (RedHat based distro). Another option is Xandros (www.xandros.com) (previously Corel Linux). I dont know Xandros, but its installation program ask you 5 questions before start coping files :0 This the most Windows alike distro I ever seen (from its web site).

Tip, do not even think to try Debian

Almost all Linux distros come with the mayor Desktop managers available Gnome (http://www.gnome.org) and KDE (http://www.kde.org). Personally I recommend KDE, but you are free to try them all.

Tip, take an empty hard disk in a reasonable fast computer (dont use anything before Pentium 150) and fully dedicate the HD to the Linux distro of your choice (i.e. Mandrake ;))

The installation is nearly a snap, and the bos will be ready for multimedia/office use. If you have no exotic hardware, the installation should not be a problem.

If you really want to break the chains of Windows, simple, just switch to Linux. Do it or not do it, never try it. I tried to switch to Linux for many years, never worked until i decided to do it. It was a hard period od adaptation (about 2 weeks). You have to learn thinking in Linux way.

I guess you already installed it, dont you? :)

[pegasus]

well done :thumbup:
you allready have half a foot in the right direction. changing from "redmond" to the linux community is not a walk in the garden, but worth enough to give thought to.
let me think back...
it was about 2 years ago when i had decided to ponder new hunting grounds. i was your typical click and go "redmonder", until someday someone told me that windows "servers" was for softies, and if i wanted some hardcore program then i should change to linux or unix.
i took the challenge and have been with it ever since. i would never change back.

now to the pro's and con's
windows has become quite stable -> unfortunatly at a high price
the sw vendors offer more programs that run under windows than linux/unix -> i can live with that
ms office is one of a kind, no other vendor offers such an amazing grouped application -> i can live with openoffice, its free but rudimentry
windows took me three months to understand -> i'm still learning new things everyday under linux

moral of the story:
if you want to be a hardcore dude and have lots and lots of time then go for linux/unix
if you want something thats plug and play but needs more financial investment, then stick to windows
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

rgds peg(-)sus

[llama]

Hi Slack,

First off, thanks for the help with multi-mode server a while back.

I took the plunge into the world of Linux a couple of years ago. I started by dual-booting Windows 98 with Caldera and had fun tinkering. I now have four systems in the house. The two desktops are both XP Professional, the old Compaq P200 acts as our gateway/firewall for our cable connection, and the last system runs the UT2003 server, acts a file-server for the XP machines, and houses our back-ups.

Like the others have said, it does take time and you certainly dont' want a critical system (wife's desktop) or service (UT2003 server) running on a Linux-only machine until you're comfortable working with it.

Therefore, I agree with you that dual-booting could be the way for you to start out. It's pretty easy to set-up if you plan ahead. Most of the info you need has already by referenced in this thread. However, I have one piece of advice: until you're sure you're going to keep a distribution on your disk, keep the boot-loader off the Master Boot Record... just use a floppy to start.

For what it's worth, my router uses RedHat 7.3 and the UT2003 server used RedHat 8.0 (you don't need the Pro). If you need help, I'm happy to offer. Contact me by PM

Good luck!

[captain-insano]

Slack resist the urge to reinstall windows when you get frustrated. Walk away from the computer for a while if you get stuck and try to read anything you can get your hands on. Linux can be hard but when you do figure something out it is very gratifying. A good site for help is Linuxforums.org. I just finished getting Samba to work and while it was a pain in the ass I feel like I conquered the world. Good Luck! :thumbsup: :thumbup:

[HSU_DrJoneZ]

Slack, there is also another option if you want to dangle your feet in the waters of Linux. There are a few flavours of Linux that you can install and run directly off of a CD. No dual boot (at least until you feel more comfortable with the environment) and then later, when you are ready for it, jump right in... cause the waters great!

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html

[HSU_DrJoneZ]

Here are a couple more Linux references that I have found quite handy:

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/linux/

or

www.linuxos.org

Good Luck!

[Azazel]

Slack if you want to play try VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/download/)
Lets you run an OS within an OS and has a trial version for 30 days.

I'm sure in 30 days you can figure out whether you like Linux or not.
Word of warning though, backup your machine first.
VMWare throws in some hefty hooks into Windows with networking etc so full networking works so its worth making a Ghost image or similar to revert back to after testing.

I half agree with CaptnSpliff though, stick with what works the half I don't though is that Windows can be just as stable.
Main reason IMO Linux is usually more stable can be found from this sentence:
However, Linux for file storage and "serving" is good. I have a Z: drive that I regularily dump backups to, I don't think I've rebooted that machine is a good 150+ days. Rock steady. I've also just setup another machine (albeit slow) only for a UT2K3 CTF server. That's all it'll be doing, and assuming the code for UT2K3 is steady, I don't think I'll have to manage the machine for anything less than a hardware failure (DAMN power supplies!)
Thats 2 machines doing 2 seperate jobs.
If you ran a Windows server that did nothing but 1 job you to would enjoy 150 day uptimes, but most Windows users don't and thats where half the problems lie IMO.

[nicracer]

Slack, there is also another option if you want to dangle your feet in the waters of Linux. There are a few flavours of Linux that you can install and run directly off of a CD. No dual boot (at least until you feel more comfortable with the environment) and then later, when you are ready for it, jump right in... cause the waters great!

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html
Its got every thing and if you got the guts to install you can I live by SuSE I found it the easiest Its a world different than RedHat not better or worse just different dam germans

[coke]

Hi,

First of all, I'd like to say: Linux is not ready as a desktop OS. Though....

I have a Linux router on a Pentium 66, a Linux mailserver on a Pentium 75, a Linux fileserver on a Pentium 2 400 and a Linux workstation on an AMD Athlon 1600XP. And... A Windows 2000 workstation on a Pentium 3 500. All the Linux boxes run Debian.

Maybe my opinion does not count for newbies since I have 4 years of continual experience with Linux. Maybe it gives the newbies something to look forward to: I run OpenOffice.org, gaim (for MSN Messenger), read and send mail (Sylpheed or Evolution), browse through the Web (Mozilla), design and code, play UT2003, IRC, draw and paint (Gimp), watch movies (mplayer), listen to music (xmms), use my webcam, all those in Linux. And I used to play UT, Quake 3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein fine in Linux. Oh, and I run a UT2003 dedicated server on my Linux fileserver too.

As for sharing files with Windows computers: you'll need Samba, which is a filesharing server for Linux and it will read shares on Windows computers fine. http://www.samba.org is where you need to go to for that. For Linux newbies, I'd recommend http://rute.sourceforge.net and http://www.tldp.org and some links on http://getlinuxhelp.org which I maintain. And don't hesitate to stop by in #linuxhelp on irc.undernet.org :) You'll easily find me there, too (hey don't stalk me, ok?)

Now it sounds like Linux is ready to be a fully featured desktop OS. That is not really true: it is still hard to get things working the way you want them to. Not all hardware is easily supported: you'll encounter problems with some soundcards, some modems (especially winmodems: http://www.linmodems.org/ ) and with USB devices ( http://www.linux-usb.org ). You could check the hardware compatibility list ( http://www.linuxhardware.org looks like a good resource, but http://www.google.com always has the answer :) )

Once you have all the things working in Linux that you used to work with in Windows, albeit a bit different, the next step is maintaining your Linux workstation/server. Don't forget this step: you'll need to keep up to date, because of possible vulnerabilities. Linux distributions often come with a package manager, some of which will automatically update your system by downloading from the Net and install the new versions of the packages installed when you tell it to.

Okay, it all sounds like you need to put a lot of time and effort in Linux. That's partly true: it is not a 5 minutes' work and it is not all point-and-click. But when you get used to it, you'll be able to solve almost every problem you encounter. And it sure is great to feel like you've conquered the whole world :)

I can just say: when you have time on your hands, try it out, use the Internet, especially google, and good luck :thumbup:

[coke]

If you ran a Windows server that did nothing but 1 job you to would enjoy 150 day uptimes, but most Windows users don't and thats where half the problems lie IMO.

My Windows 2000 workstation once had a 170+ days uptime. I used it on a regular basis, it was solid as a rock. Until a friend of mine brought a silly mini-digicam with its USB cable and wanted to test it on my Windows box... I installed the drivers and stuff, didn't seem to work, so we left it. The next day I saw the icons of his cam and moved them around, they seemed to be on the wrong place. *crash* blue screen.

I'm going to kill him.