New Linux User

i noticed that my OS becomes unstable when i do an update on it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't have a real need for linux. I still use windows way more than linux. I just like computers, and I thought it would be fun to set up a dual boot. It's never a bad thing to learn to use a new operating system, especially with my career choice of software engineering.

Really? Can it even play Windows Media file types?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I don't have a need for Windows.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It can play wma files if w32codecs are installed. Not legal in the USA as far as I know.

p.s. Linux native file systems (EXT2, EXT3, ReiserFS) do not need defragmentation under normal use and this includes any condition with at least 5% of free space on a disk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wouldn't exactly call Linux 'free'.

Mandriva wants $34.90 - $120 per year for downloading the free software.
http://store.mandriva.com/index.php?currency=USD&osCsid=4f2f8191a325d1e93fbeb4acee6d7272

Though admittedly that's about what I spend each year on free software from mags and Norton antivirus.

 

That's bullshit, you don't need to subscribe to that service.
It's only for those too lazy to type a few words themselves or those willing to support the company,
besides Mandriva is just one Linux distribution out of many and, if you wish, you can choose a lot of other less commercial ones with no additional services and support.

 

The word "free" in this context doesn't always mean free as in zero price (or "free as in beer," as it's often calleD) -- although most open-source software has no monetary cost. It's "free as in speech," which means that the user can do whatever with the software.

 

What OS?

 

if i am not mistaken linux is created under the GNU license which means you cannot be charged for it. it is in fact free.

 

windows millenium

 

Linux is just the kernel, upon that are distributions, which can be either commercial (like Linspire) un non-commerical (like Arch linux).
Companies can charge for support, extra services and in house software, but not for GPL code,
and there is commercial, non-GPL software for Linux too.

One company can employ both of these models, like Red Hat, which has a completely open source community distribution that has to meet Red Hat guidelines - Fedora Core, and the commercial Red Hat (Enterprise) which is an enchanted version and uses Fedora Core as a base upon which Red Hat puts commercial software intended for corporate clients.
In return Red Hat pays professional software engineers to develop GPL code for Fedora Core in addition to the code and design contributions by the community.

 

i am not familiar with how linux stores files on disk. i assume its linear, one byte after another filling up each sector before starting on the next. under those conditions the only possible way it cannnot become fragmented is if you do not delete any files.

windows doesn't 'need' to be defragmented either but after a long period of time saving and deleting files the disk becomes fragmented. i have never run defrag on this installation of windows. the only time that i run defrag is when i record to a cdr and then its on my downloads disk.

 

Linux filesystems are more efficient than that I'm no software engineer, but here's what I understand from the technical side:
They fragment, but that doesn't slow down the performance, hence no defragmentation is needed.
Linux filesystems use a better clustering algorithm so new files aren't just started in the first available hole, regardless of size. A second factor is that Linux traditionally uses an entire swap partition and not just creating/modifying a swap file on the main partition like Windows, thus most of the fragmentatin that occurs in windows is transfered to a seperate partition specially intended for that. Even when extensive fragmentation occurs, it doesn't affect Linux performance as significantly as Windows.
Thus fragmentation usually can occur only when you have more than 95% of hdd full and generally is a non issue.

 

Well I figure it would get a bit unstable when you upgrade it, especially if it's a ME to begin with. I'd probably do a clean install of whatever newer OS you wanted, personally.

 

um i said upDATE not upgrade

update is where you go to microsofts website and download security fixes and patches.

upgrade is where you install a newer version of windows over an existing version.

 

I know the difference. But the first half of what I said must still be mostly true when you substitute "update". So it's all the same.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have now obtained Mandriva 2006 and Fedora Core 5 CDs (thanks again, "John"). My plan for the time being is to use a portion of the free space on my harddrive to try them out one at a time. I have no real reason to make a long-term deviation from my current XP/Mandriva set-up, especially since I've yet to find a damn driver for my modem.

I'll keep you posted on the problems and stuff I might encounter in the process.

przyk, can you could tell me how much harddrive space Fedora takes up?

 

Apparently over 9 gigabytes if you do an "everything" install, but that'll include a lot of things you probably won't need. I didn't bother with the details of how much space I would need when I was installing, as I set aside enough space (80 GB) for it not to be an issue.

If you're playing around with different Linux distros, I suppose the BSD's are also worth a mention. I'm thinking of trying out FreeBSD this summer.

 

5gb for Fedora should be ok, but I think you can manage 4.
In this aspect Fedora puts too much stuff on the hd for my liking.

 

I liked using FreeBSD, although I had some problems doing upgrades of version "remotely" since it seems that to upgrade you need to be logged in as root at the machine itself. There seemed to be suggestion it could be done remotely, however I usually found it failing and asking the systems Admin to fix the old kernel back in place.

A friend of mine swore by OpenBSD, theres also netBSD.

Do note that BSD isn't a Linux distro, it's actually a flavour of Unix.

 

And a few more. Dragonfly BSD supposedly sets itself apart by using a hybrid kernel. I think FreeBSD sounds like the one to start with (and it's the top ranking non-Linux OS on distrowatch.com). From what I've heard, OpenBSD concerns itself mostly with security, and NetBSD with portability.

Yep, it's why I mentioned them.