Thread: Installing Red Hat 9.0

Ok...i'm about fed up with Linux, and I haven't even experienced it yet!.

i've tried downloading the free version online..but i can't seem to burn the .iso image correctly.
i'm just going to buy it in the store
What i'm wanting to know is:
a. i have winxp and want to do a dual boot option, do I need to buy a partion program
b. Is Red Hat Linux worth the $ 40 buy?
c. How in the world do I set up the dual boot. ?

PLEASE HELP! Lots of thanks

Originally posted by Mustang5670
Ok...i'm about fed up with Linux, and I haven't even experienced it yet!.

i've tried downloading the free version online..but i can't seem to burn the .iso image correctly.
i'm just going to buy it in the store
What i'm wanting to know is:
a. i have winxp and want to do a dual boot option, do I need to buy a partion program
b. Is Red Hat Linux worth the $ 40 buy?
c. How in the world do I set up the dual boot. ?

PLEASE HELP! Lots of thanks

a. No. But if your XP partition takes up the whole drive you might want to use another hard drive or try to resize it.
b. No. No. No. No. RH9 is really not great at all. There are much better kinds out there. Hell, RedHat isn't even being developed anymore - it's now called Fedora, and run by the RH community instead of the RH developers. Try doing a stage3 Gentoo Linux install. http://gentoo.org - their install guide is impeccable. Use Nero Burning ROM to burn the files to CDs.
c. If you use Gentoo, it's right in the documentation step-by-step. It should be a part of most install programs, too. Basically you install a bootloader such as GRUB or LILO on the MBR, and you can choose which system to boot when you turn your computer on.

thanks

I got Suse Linux 9.0 now with a duel boot..i'm a happy man.
I got to say even though i've been a linux owner for about an hour. I'm very pleased.

The problem with a full GUI install like SuSE's is that you don't learn anything about Linux in the process. You just have a replacement for windows. You should at least go learn as many commands and programs as you can.

That's point of Linux: to make a good Windows replacement. Linux actually goes beyond Windows in usability: Program Manager and File Manager are not very user friendly when compared to GNOME or KDE. For everyone I know with a computer, I recommend Mandrake Linux 9.2 to replace Microsoft's dastardly monopoly.

Originally posted by UnregdRegd
That's point of Linux: to make a good Windows replacement. Linux actually goes beyond Windows in usability: Program Manager and File Manager are not very user friendly when compared to GNOME or KDE. For everyone I know with a computer, I recommend Mandrake Linux 9.2 to replace Microsoft's dastardly monopoly.

Well, I can't really say anything but that you're completely wrong. Maybe the point of a distribution like Mandrake is to be a Windows replacement, but Linux itself is far from it.

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here:

>>Program Manager and File Manager are not very user friendly when compared to GNOME or KDE.<<

Program Manager hasn't been used since Win3.1, and I'll just assume that by File Manager you mean Explorer. I'm not sure how you could say that Windows isn't user friendly compared to KDE or GNOME...it's mostly the other way around. Explorer is *very* user-friendly. Almost too user-friendly. That's not to say that window managers for X aren't user-friendly...I'd say that Explorer and a few window managers for X (GNOME, KDE, XFCE4, etc.) are very much on the same level.


The thing about Linux is that, well, it's not Windows. You can't do everything from your GUI, and lots of times you need to delve into the command line or edit some mysterious config file to get things to work how you would expect. That's what I was trying to say.

I like Mandrake 9.2 It resized my partition pretty easy and I had no idea what I was doing. To me SUSE was a little too complicated to set up