New user and questions

Sat Feb 7 16:36:30 UTC 2004

   Hi Steve!

   I was exactly in your shoes two years ago. I had dabled in Linux, and 
with the help of a friend I had my web server running Linux, but that 
was about it. I had threatened to switch a few times and even setup 
dual-boot on my home machine several times. In the end though, 
dual-booting, having other test machines and so forth wasn't enough. It 
was just too easy to come home, feel times and un-motivated to learn, 
and would simply boot win2k.

   Finally, about two years ago, MS came out with their "All your 
installs are belong to us" trojan EULA and that was that. I ditched MS 
on all of my home machines and ran strictly Linux (RH 7.3 in the day, 
now Fedora Core 1). If I may, I'll address some of your comments...

SRB wrote:
> Yes I have been using NT exclusively in my work environment for the past 
> decade I think! I've done some Server Admin (though nothing too extreme) 
> as well as some Oracle admin (mainly just a tiny bit of SQL). I've 
> installed/configured/troubleshot (is that a real word? :-) ) NT on many 
> different platforms (desktop/laptop). I use 2000 at home currently. 
> Someone gave me the advice when moving from windows to Linux "to forget 
> all you know", although I understand that the underlying principles are 
> the same for every OS... just the road you take to get there can be very 
> different.

   The underlying principles from a level of how this service or that 
service works is similar but implementation is rather different. First 
off, Linux as an OS and as a collection of apps is very modular. For 
example, have you ever installed AD on Win2k server? Witness the foolish 
level of "you need this before you can install that"-ness? Ie: needing 
to have DHCP and DNS up and running before you can even think about the 
AD tree :). In Linux some programs may well need other programs but they 
aren't tied together. The most you will find is that during install some 
RPMs (or whatever your package manager of choice is) requires previously 
installed RPMs. Also, when installing from source (tarballs; 
<app>.tar.gz) you may find that some libraries or such are missing. In 
the end though, everything is FAR more independant.

   There is no central registry. With -very- few exceptions a programs 
configuration is in one place, a single raw text config file. Any GUI 
tools you find will likely be simple front ends that write the text file 
for you based on what you enter. Also, there is very little chance that 
one setting here will affect a program way over there (as is the case 
often with MMC). Again, with a programs configuration being in a single 
text file, that is all you need to look at to troubleshoot a program.

   As the other person said, using Linux at any level really does 
require use of the shell. Though on the surface it looks like DOS, it is 
anything but. Now, when I occasionally have to work on a MS machine I 
usually hit the 'cmd' line and it is simple so unbelievably 
unsophisticated that it is madening. Realising the power of the shell 
(in my case, and yours if you use RH, the Bash shell) was probably the 
single biggest selling feature of Linux.

> Luckily my experience does go back to DOS days. I got serious into 
> computers in 1991... DOS with windows 3.1 on top. I always feel more in 
> control when using a CLI/shell.

   As I mentioned, the Linux shell(s) are vastly different than 
DOS/WinCLI as to be laughable however, what you know from DOS -will- be 
completely useful. You are far better off than a user who has not see a 
DOS shell! A few key notes though, some of which you may already have 
discovered...

For info on any command, simply type 'man <cmd>' or 'info <cmd>'.
'dir' is 'ls' in Linux, personally I used 'ls -lah' for detailed view.
'copy' is 'cp'
'move' is 'mv'
'cd..' doesn't work, you must always leave a space 'cp ..', otherwise it 
is the same
'edit' is (so many!). Personally, I used 'pico' in earlier RH distro 
(part of the 'pine' package) which is now 'nano' in Fedora Core 1 (they 
are identical, though). On Emacs and Vi; people will fight over which 
editor to use until the cows come home. I like 'pico/nano' because it is 
simple to use and straight forward.
'type <file>' is 'cat <file>'
from shell, type 'top' to get an equiv. to the task manager
from shell, type 'ps (I use the switches -ax)' to get a list of running 
processes. To kill one, type 'kill <pid>' (PID = process ID, the number 
to the left of the process name). If the process won't die, send 'kill 
-9 <pid>'. That always kills a process but not nicely.

   Perhaps my single favorite feature of the shell, the <tab> key!!! If 
you start to type a directory name, command or file name and then press 
<tab>, it will fill in the rest of the name so long as you have typed 
enough in to be <partially> unique. Even if you have a few options 
though, it will fill in as much of the given name as the two or more 
options are similar and then beep. Press <tab> a second time and it will 
list your remaining options. type a character or two to make the name 
mroe unique and press <tab> again to either finish off the name or 
progress until you have a diverging option. It may not be clear to 
explain but you will see what I mean in a hurry! Now, whenever I go back 
to a MS CLI I am contantly hitting <tab> only to advance the prompt five 
characters (and cuss under my breath :) ).

> Currently, due to my dial-up connection I have installed Red Hat 9 that 
> came with "Red Hat Linux 9 for Dummies" book. The reason I bought it is 
> from my previous experience with "Mac OS 8.5 for Dummies" book which I 
> really liked. I've also downloaded the small Live CD distro Morphix 
> (http://morphix.sourceforge.net/). I believe strongly in the Open Source 
> model and want to select and use non-commercial distros exclusively 
> (even though I indirectly paid for Red Hat with the book LOL). I don't 
> mind getting my hands dirty and in fact I prefer to be able to customize 
> as much as possible.
> 
> I also have O'Reilly's "Linux in a Nutshell" which I like because it 
> lists a whole bunch of commands. :->

   Redhat is a great place to start. I found it a nice balance between 
ease of use and easy exposure to the guts underneath. Others here -DO- 
have their own opinions on their distro of choice, so be careful when 
asking opinions of distros!! Personally now, I run Fedora Core 1 which 
is a community project extension of Redhat 9, run by Redhat. If you 
need/want a copy and can get downtown, I would be happy to burn you a 
copy if you can pick it up near Adelaid and Yonge (1blk N or King).

>> Invest the time, it can be a very rewarding experience :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Byron
> 
> 
> I do intend to invest a lot of time. From my experiences in the past I 
> have always enjoyed learning more to achieve more.
> 
> Thanks for your detailed response.
> 
> -Steve.

   After two years, I would, with absolute honesty, leave computers 
before going back to MS. Obviously then, I felt getting through the 
learning curve was worth it! Again, the trick is to -only- run Linux at 
home for a while. If you have MS there, you will often just boot it and 
use it out of familiarity. Then, once all your files and setting are up 
then you won't boot Linux because, well, you can't really work on it 
because your files and setting (bookmarks, e-mail) aren't there. 
Conversly, if you only have Linux then when you run into something you 
don't know, you will always find it faster/easier to learn whatever you 
need to in order to move on than it would be to re-install MS. The net 
effect then is that you start learning the details of Linux daily and 
then one day, like I did, I suddenly realised that I was more 
comfortable (and -much- happier) in Linux than in MS.

   Anywho, the $0.02 from a Linux convert and devotee! ;)

Madison

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml