[NTLUG:Discuss] New Computer -- which

[Terry Henderson]

Sorry for not correcting myself sooner, but seeing [now] that core3 is
out, I'd go with core3.


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:14:07 -0600, Terry Henderson <trryhend at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:10:26 -0600, Kipton Moravec <kip at kdream.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I do not know much about the differences between the different
> > distributions of Linux.
> >
> > I want to add a Linux as a workstation in a network with 5 Windows 98 and 1
> > Windows XP computer.  There is no server.
> >
> > I liked Redhat 9 because at the end of installation it was "automagically"
> > on a windows network and I could see the shared folders on the Windows
> > machines.  And transfer files back and forth with a GUI.
> >
> > In addition the XP computer and one of the Windows 98 computers have the
> > printer I intend to connect to for printing.
> >
> > I do not want to start a distribution war, but should I go with Redhat 9
> > knowing that it is the end of the line, or should I go to a different
> > distribution.  My main interest is to keep the system up to date easily,
> > and not have to get down in the guts of the OS to make something work.
> >
> > Redhat 9 is the only distribution I have played with at all, and I am not
> > very familiar with it.
> >
> > Kip
> 
> You're right in wanting to stick with what you are familiar with.
> Redhat 9 would be okay, but, my suggestion would be Fedora Core 1 or
> 2. (Fedora Core 1 & 2 & 3 are continuation of Redhat for destkop
> users, the rest is for interprise use.) Fedora core 1 uses 2.4 kernel
> still and if you do the updates,  it will be very stable.  If you have
> broad band internet, the updates will be easily obtainable.
> If you think you need kernel version 2.6, go for Core 2
> Fedora is very user friendly and uses the same install routines you
> saw in Redhat 9.
> See:
> http://fedora.redhat.com/
> for more info.
> 


-- 
Please make a note of my new email address.
<><