Ok, can someone give me a rundown on a couple of things?
I have heard of a phenomenon called “Windows Rot.” Let me tell you that my Win98 at home and at work are starting to crash (at home I get illegal operations and at work I get fatal exceptions) about once every other day. How long can I expect my OS to do what it is supposed to before I need to reinstall it? I am getting really frustrated.
Secondly, how long are hard drives expected to last? At home I have but one. When should I look into getting a new one?
Thirdly, I am thinking about getting a linux OS too… now, I don’t want a debate the plusses and minuses of Windows versus Linux, I’m gonna have both, but which Linux version should I get? Understand that I have never used any Unix-style OS before, but I am pretty familiar with DOS-style command line commands (I love 'em, actually).
I have heard of a phenomenon called “Windows Rot.” Let me tell you that my Win98 at home and at work are starting to crash (at home I get illegal operations and at work I get fatal exceptions) about once every other day. How long can I expect my OS to do what it is supposed to before I need to reinstall it? I am getting really frustrated.
Usually depends on how much stuff has been installed and
how often windows has locked up (and required a hard re-boot) in the past. Software conflicts, damaged files and munged up registries are the main culprits. You should probably format the disk and re-install windows once even 12 to 18 months or so if you are constantly tinkering with it. Secondly, how long are hard drives expected to last? At home I have but one. When should I look into getting a new one?
No telling. You should get at least several years of service out of modern drives. As long as it is not accumulating bad sectors or otherwise mis-behaving simply replace it when you need a bigger, faster drive and not before.
I see that astro answered the first part, so I’ll attack the last:
I personally have some experience with RedHat and SuSE. They are both very good, but I prefer RedHat. It’s possible that SuSE is better or a single home user, but in a heavily networked workplace I like the RedHat way of doing things. Both are easy to install if you have standard hardware, but can be a bitch if you have an exotic configuration. The most important choice is that of GUI. I like KDE, but no doubt GNOME claim their interface of choice is better. It’s really a matter of taste. Try to find a nearby ‘expert’ (Any nerdy friends?) who uses one or the other, and invite him (or her) over for dinner. That’s the best way to learn.
And if you like the DOS prompt you’ll love tcsh (or bash or whatever)
On the first issue, I find that my NT boxes that get used as workstations tend to last 8-12 months before needing to be wiped and re-installed. In some instances, this is “enforced” by the OS because it will fail catastrophically. In others, problems just become more and more frequent until I get fed up and redo it. On my boxes that run as servers (fileserver, webserver etc.) without the day-to-day changes, NT can run indefinitely (not more than a few weeks without reboot, but don’t require re-install).
On the second, I have hard drives that are 6 years old on machines that had daily pounding throughout. I’ve had others start to get flaky within a year. A lot of it depends on the original quality of the drive.
On the third, I’m a slackware guy for historical reasons, but I don’t usually recommend that for new installs. Red Hat is my usual rec because the install and update systems are user-friendly and there’s lots of online help. However, I’d second tc’s comment that you should use whatever your local guru uses. If you know someone you can reach out to, use what they know so they’ll be more willing and able to help. As for KDE vs. Gnome, I don’t think it makes any difference; they’re both good and since you’re starting from scratch you can get used to either one.
KDE’s interface is a lot like Windows so you won’t feel entirely out of place. I’d suggest RedHat if you want it to be your first linux install but if you’re feeling exceptionally ballsy you could install slackware which is particularly good.
I strongly recommend Debian. Debian’s package management system is the best I’ve seen so far, and Debian almost never releases broken packages (unlike Red Hat, which routinely does so).
One way to “test out Unix” without doing a full Linux install is to try Cygwin. It is a fairly complete package of standard GNU/Unix/etc. utilities that runs under the usual MS Windows flavors. You can even install an XServer and run Xwindows apps. (Which I just love!) I feel like I have nearly the full Unix environment that I am so used to, including good old tcsh, vi, find, grep, gcc, and so on. Not to forget servers like Apache and other really nice networking software.
Cygwin is part of RedHat, free, easy to install (you can pick which apps to setup), open source, etc.
FtG
It’s not pronounced “Lyn-nix”. Go read the Linux pronounciation FAQ if you doubt me.
Umm, it is free. Every installation of Linux I’ve done has been downloaded from an ftp server and burned to CD. Although you can go to the store and buy a boxed set, with manuals and such if you’re lazy or don’t have the resources/bandwidth to do that efficiently.
FTR, Mandrake is the distro that I use and I love it. The install is simple and it uses Red Hat’s RPM packaging manager for easy installs of new software. I use it for all sorts of things, as a personal workstation and as a server. I use it for web browsing, running an Apache webserver, hosting IRC bots, ftp server, Winamp MP3 player, etc, etc , etc it can do all and more than Windows can do. Hopefully, once it takes hold, more and more apps will be made for it and I can get rid of windows for good. (My win98 box is dying, too. )
I forgot to mention, you can also (usually) order just the distrobution CDs for cost if downloading or buying the boxed sets don’t work for you. I know a lot of people prefer that method.
I have DSL, so I usually just start downloading the .iso images (there are two for the current Mandrake distro) in the evening. (Use a download manager. It sucks if you start a download and go to bed and wake up to see that it only got 5 megs and cut out. :D) Then burn the .iso images to CDs (I use Easy CD Creator) and install from the CDs.
Also, as far as Windows rot, I seem to get it 2-3 times a year, but I do a lot of tweaking and installing and uninstalling and messing with things. The key is to keep a constant back up of hard to replace things or things that take a long time to back up (large file size)(for example, I keep back ups of all my MP3s, My Documents folder and all my images). that way you can do a quick reinstall and send everything back to your HD while you sleep.
Why do people list RPM as a “feature”? RPM sucks giant donkey dongs. The only reason why RPM is “preferred” is because Red Hat invented it, and because it’s easier to make (note: make, not use) RPMs than it is to make any of the other packaging formats.
Well, it’s preferred for a number of reasons. One is that, like you said, it makes installation of new software easier. Another is because of compatibility with the Red Hat system. What’s wrong with that? Red Hat puts out a lot of packages, so it is nice to be able to choose from those packages, and the installation is basically automatic.
I’m no sheep. Sorry if the RPM system doesn’t do credit to your arcane little *nix command line world, but for newbies like myself, it helps a great deal. I’m no sheep.
No, it doesn’t, at least not compared to dselect and apt-get (the Debian package system).
Debian can use RPMs with Alien.
Assuming all goes well, and you happen to have all the dependencies met. Often, this fails to happen. (I have a “wedged” Mandrake machine which I can’t upgrade anymore without serious fudgery because of strange package dependencies.) You end up having to use --force and --no-deps waaaay too much.
Arcane command line world? RPM has more confusing command line options than anything else I’ve seen since VMS Backup.
)