[JohnG]

I've got some old hardware that I was considering making into a file server or a media server or both.
What's everyone's opinion on the best version of Linux to go for ? I'd hopefully want to run the slimserver software (might be called squeeze centre or something like that now).

[Old_Biker_John]

Hello again JohnG,

Some idea of the spec. of your old hardware (make/model if a system, or component list with speeds/capacities if not) might help to focus members' thoughts in selecting suitable software for your needs.

I was hoping to revive an old Dell lattitude CP D266XT laptop to do office work in Linux, but a Pentium II 266, 128MB of EDO RAM, a 4GB hard drive and a very restrictive BIOS seem to narrow my options considerably!

I hope your old hardware spec. is good enough for your Linux needs.

All the best,

John.

[JohnG]

Hi,
It's a Pentium 4 2Ghz processor with an 80GB hard drive and 512MB RAM so it's not all that old I suppose ! I think it's got a GeForce4 graphics card.
I was hoping to do a dual boot system as it's currently got XP Pro on and running reasonably well.

[Old_Biker_John]

Originally Posted by JohnG

I was hoping to do a dual boot system as it's currently got XP Pro on and running reasonably well.

Hi,

Your system looks to be capable of what you want it to do.

I'm a Linux newbie myself, but the AVF 'Linux links' thread shows 'Linux Forums' as a possible source of help.

I had a quick look in there and this one of their forums seems like a good place to seek an answer to your question http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ux-software-2/ .

If you tell them what your system spec. is and ask for suggestions I would expect some response before long as the first page of threads is all dated today.

Sorry that I can't help more myself.

[RRB]

Originally Posted by JohnG

I've got some old hardware that I was considering making into a file server or a media server or both.
What's everyone's opinion on the best version of Linux to go for ? I'd hopefully want to run the slimserver software (might be called squeeze centre or something like that now).

Server wise you really cant go wrong with Debian. Really depends on how robust you want the server to be and also you knowledge of linux at the moment.

[JohnG]

I installed Suse on a computer last year and got it running ok, but I soon realised that I should have installed it on an older computer rather than the dual core AMD machine that I'd put it on. It was a bit of a waste putting it on there. My background is mainly DOS (until I was forced to learn windows many years ago!!) although I did do a couple of packages for unix many years ago so might remember the odd command

[RRB]

If your really just looking to use it as a server id probably go with Debian or a Debian based distro.

Im a Gentoo fanboy though so personally id use Gentoo

[JohnG]

I must admit I know very little about all the various distros of Linux so I need to do some investgation.
Thanks for the replies.

[TOMMOHAWK_UK]

Originally Posted by Old_Biker_John

Hello again JohnG,

Some idea of the spec. of your old hardware (make/model if a system, or component list with speeds/capacities if not) might help to focus members' thoughts in selecting suitable software for your needs.

I was hoping to revive an old Dell lattitude CP D266XT laptop to do office work in Linux, but a Pentium II 266, 128MB of EDO RAM, a 4GB hard drive and a very restrictive BIOS seem to narrow my options considerably!

I hope your old hardware spec. is good enough for your Linux needs.

All the best,


John.

If you have restrictive hardware/bios and its not a very powerful system then you should really consider DSL (Damn Small Linux). Not sure what the hardware detection is like but with an old laptop you should be fine. You only need 32mb of RAM to run it so you should be fine. You can install openoffice from the repositories once you have installed the main system. Openoffice is compatible with M$office so you should be fine with that.

Ken

[Old_Biker_John]

Originally Posted by TOMMOHAWK_UK

If you have restrictive hardware/bios and its not a very powerful system then you should really consider DSL (Damn Small Linux).

Hi Ken,

Thanks for that suggestion I have downloaded DSL 4.2.5 ISO and will give it a try tomorrow.

Its past my bedtime now!

John.

Originally Posted by JohnG

I've got some old hardware that I was considering making into a file server or a media server or both.
What's everyone's opinion on the best version of Linux to go for ? I'd hopefully want to run the slimserver software (might be called squeeze centre or something like that now).

Ubuntu in its various forms is a good choice for a newbie and PCLOS is doing quite well.
Given that it takes about an hour and the answers to some 6 questions to install a dual boot with linux and another os. It is worth trying one to see if it suits and discarding it if it proves too tricky. All the recent versions come with media streaming server applications and will serve to ms as well as linux clients.
Good luck
Tux

[JohnG]

Cheers, I've been hearing a lot of people rave about Ubuntu

[scotty38]

Originally Posted by RRB

Im a Gentoo fanboy though so personally id use Gentoo

It's not for the faint hearted though is it?

[TOMMOHAWK_UK]

Originally Posted by scotty38

It's not for the faint hearted though is it?

Absolutley correct!!



There is a school of thought though that if you want Linux to just work then you should use Ubuntu or PCLOS or OpenSuse. However, if you want to know HOW Linux works then use Gentoo. Of course, if you still want Gentoo but want point and click then use Sabyon.

[scotty38]

Originally Posted by TOMMOHAWK_UK

Absolutley correct!!



There is a school of thought though that if you want Linux to just work then you should use Ubuntu or PCLOS or OpenSuse. However, if you want to know HOW Linux works then use Gentoo. Of course, if you still want Gentoo but want point and click then use Sabyon.

I'm an absolute novice at this and in the two months I've been playing with Linux I've had, in order, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mint, PCLOS, Kubuntu (HH), OpenSUSE, and now just updating Fedora as we speak.

I looked at Gentoo just before this install of Fedora but I'm afraid it was all just a bit too much for me right now

[TOMMOHAWK_UK]

Originally Posted by JohnG

I've got some old hardware that I was considering making into a file server or a media server or both.
What's everyone's opinion on the best version of Linux to go for ? I'd hopefully want to run the slimserver software (might be called squeeze centre or something like that now).

Took me a while to think about this one so I could give you some proper advice!!


If the system is just to be a media server or file server then you only need to run a basic OS. I have already mentioned to Old_biker_John to use DSL (Damn Small Linux) because it really is a basic distro with nothing on it that you don't need. All you would have to do is configure the system once installed and then add a program called MediaTomb (google for it). I use this on my laptop to stream divX movies to my PS3 and it works a treat. I start it as and when I need it but you can set it up to run all the time which should meet your needs perfectly.


Of course there is no reason why you can't use a fully featured distro like ubuntu or PCLOS etc but then again you have to consider the system, storage, do you really need the added bulk etc.



Ken

[TOMMOHAWK_UK]

Originally Posted by scotty38

I looked at Gentoo just before this install of Fedora but I'm afraid it was all just a bit too much for me right now

That's funny actually. I have been using Linux for around 4 years but only over the last 18 months as my primary OS. I'm still not ready for Gentoo!!


Actually it's becasue I'm lazy and can't be bothered compiling everything from source.

[scotty38]

Originally Posted by TOMMOHAWK_UK

Actually it's becasue I'm lazy and can't be bothered compiling everything from source.

Hmm I think you've hit the nail on the head there!

The handbook is fairly comprehensive so I reckon with a little effort it's possible even with limited Linux experience but it does seem like a bit of hard work nonetheless....

[_z0]

For an initial installation you can't go wrong with K/Ubuntu. This allows you to dip into Linux and get a start. For a server a default install is quite bloated. For a HTPC project I'm working on I've installed a bare-bones Kubuntu and then put in the things I actually need which will keep the bloat to a minimum.

For a desktop PC I've been hearing a lot of recommendations for Arch Linux so that's whats going on my new PC.

You could also use FreeNAS as mentioned in another thread.

Choices, choices...

[graham.myers]

I'm quite happy with my Fedora 8 install. But I'm from an oracle backgorund using Red Hat linux so I was biased

[JohnG]

If I go ahead with this the server will be out of the way so I'd need to remote terminal into it. Is this possible with a linux box and is it possible to install linux on a machine using a remote terminal ?

[TimD]

Originally Posted by JohnG

If I go ahead with this the server will be out of the way so I'd need to remote terminal into it. Is this possible with a linux box and is it possible to install linux on a machine using a remote terminal ?

Yes, you need to run sshd on the server and connect to it using any ssh client (e.g. putty).

If you want to use X remotely, the easiest way is to use X forwarding via ssh. Although there's not much point installing X on a headless machine.

Most distributions can be installed headless, via ssh. You'd need to read the distro's installation instructions for details.

Tim

[graham.myers]

I didnt install headless but do run it headless.

I use putty and vnc (for X) from my home desktop, mostly vnc

at work I tunnel across putty's SSH with VNC although its a tad slow because of the rubbish upload speed of Virgin

[Gerbil]

If it's a server that's going to have any Internet facing services installed then my advice would be Centos. Essentially it's a rebuild of RedHat Enterprise Linux and comes with the same long term support. Centos mimic the RedHat support policy so security updates for Centos 4 should be available until 2012.

The release schedule for Fedora is just too aggressive for me. They have a major release every six months and security updates for Fedora Core 6 have already ceased. Server to me implies something stable that isn't going to need rebuilding or a major upgrade for at least two to three years.

Come 2012 I might have to upgrade the server hardware as Centos 5 doesn't support my Via C3 low power chip. Apparently RedHat have ditched support for 486 class processors :-)

Having reread this post I come across as some kind of distro nazi, but the point I was trying to make is its better to upgrade your server OS in a planned manner because you want to. If you become reliant on having web or secure shell running on your server and security updates cease then you may find yourself having to upgrade at short notice.

[MarvTheRobot]

Originally Posted by Gerbil

If it's a server that's going to have any Internet facing services installed then my advice would be Centos. Essentially it's a rebuild of RedHat Enterprise Linux and comes with the same long term support. Centos mimic the RedHat support policy so security updates for Centos 4 should be available until 2012.

The release schedule for Fedora is just too aggressive for me. They have a major release every six months and security updates for Fedora Core 6 have already ceased. Server to me implies something stable that isn't going to need rebuilding or a major upgrade for at least two to three years.

Come 2012 I might have to upgrade the server hardware as Centos 5 doesn't support my Via C3 low power chip. Apparently RedHat have ditched support for 486 class processors :-)

Having reread this post I come across as some kind of distro nazi, but the point I was trying to make is its better to upgrade your server OS in a planned manner because you want to. If you become reliant on having web or secure shell running on your server and security updates cease then you may find yourself having to upgrade at short notice.

I do agree with Gerbil...and in that light, it would be worth noting that Ubuntu 8.04 (Available as stable later this month) is a Long Term Support (LTS) version, and should see stability until about 2012 aswell.....Just to give another option as I am an Ubuntu fan. There is nothing wrong with the other distro's, I just ended up sticking to Ubuntu as it has served well for my needs

[Desmo]

I'm a newb to Ubuntu but I've found it so good I've now totally dumped my Vista install after just 2 weeks. It does everything I want it to. However I would say it's not for everybody...if you don't like fiddling or fixing small problems then it might not be for you. Not everything "just wokrs" straight out of the box.

If you want to give it a go, download the Ubuntu Live CD. You can boot from the CD and it gives you the complete package to use as a live environment from the disc. You can then install from the if you want to or just turn off.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Desmo

However I would say it's not for everybody...if you don't like fiddling or fixing small problems then it might not be for you. Not everything "just wokrs" straight out of the box.

You could say the same about Vista

[Desmo]

You could say it about any OS really. None of them are perfect.

But in general, Windows does just work out of the box far better than almost every Linux OS. I guess my main point is that when you have to fix something in Linux, you have to start editing config files and playing in the terminal on a lot of occasions. Something that you don't really have to do in Windows.

So, it comes down to are you happy playing with things like this? If so, then go ahead. If not, you might want to stick with Doze