Which linux is better
Red Hat8.0 or Red Hat9.0
Which Redhat better
Which Redhat better
Waqas
my persoal best experience is rh 7.3 :)
my persoal best experience is rh 7.3 
for wt uses u wana make selection between 8 and 9?
for wt uses u wana make selection between 8 and 9?
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Despite the fact that the latest is always going to be the better one, there are reasons why you might want to consider staying a release or two behind. For example, if you're doing a production deployment of Oracle, the Redhat release certified for oracle is usually a year old (for example, RH 7.2 is certified right now). The danger with using an old release is that you run the danger of running unpatched, possibly vulnerable code. If you need a longer lifecycle, use a distro that has a longer support lifecycle. Redhat Enterprise, SuSE, and Debian (stable) all have a much longer cycle than the developer/desktop releases.
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
-
kadnan
- Battalion Quarter Master Havaldaar
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Karachi,Pakistan
- Contact:
in my opinion, Redhat6.0 was the most stable version of Redhat,yes 7.3 is also stable..if you`re expert enoough to compile and install X,gcc,KDE,gnome etc yourself then you shoudn`t go for either 8 or 9
-and if u can`t do it then do it what i have done,Install redhat 8 and after that boot the cd from redhat9 and instead of INSTALL option ,select UPDATE option..select your desired packages but in X option,select NO package at all..redhat installer will pick necessary packages itself..you shoudn`t select yourself any X libs at all,click next..thats it
-you woudnt experience problems like SLOW performance,slow loading of experience as you woudn`t install new Thread libs,shipped with redhat9
I am using upgraded redhat8 with KDE3.1,gcc3.2.blah blah and qt3.1,none of these have been shipped with redhat8
-adnan
-and if u can`t do it then do it what i have done,Install redhat 8 and after that boot the cd from redhat9 and instead of INSTALL option ,select UPDATE option..select your desired packages but in X option,select NO package at all..redhat installer will pick necessary packages itself..you shoudn`t select yourself any X libs at all,click next..thats it
-you woudnt experience problems like SLOW performance,slow loading of experience as you woudn`t install new Thread libs,shipped with redhat9
I am using upgraded redhat8 with KDE3.1,gcc3.2.blah blah and qt3.1,none of these have been shipped with redhat8
-adnan
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Well im using redhat 9 with the native posix thread library, and i have no problems of slow performance.Beleive it or not ,but its true.
It all depends on how well you have configured and customized your distro for optimal performance.
Selecting an optimal theme, disabling un needed services, setting proper configs are some basic steps to boost performance.
Also i dont recommend to use the blue curve theme.Its quite slow.Instead use one of the tons of other themes available by default in rh9 like the simplistic theme
But i do agree some users of rh9 have reported system slow performance with nptl library, but with some tweaking and customization, you can overcome the problem.
I have tried that upgrading method by compiling sources and binaries as well.
Instead of trying the cumbersome method of updating packages from rh6 to all the way to 9 thru the enable disable compile method which requires loads of precious time, its much better to install rh9 from scratch, and do some little tweaking and customization to optimize system wide performance.
It all depends on how well you have configured and customized your distro for optimal performance.
Selecting an optimal theme, disabling un needed services, setting proper configs are some basic steps to boost performance.
Also i dont recommend to use the blue curve theme.Its quite slow.Instead use one of the tons of other themes available by default in rh9 like the simplistic theme
But i do agree some users of rh9 have reported system slow performance with nptl library, but with some tweaking and customization, you can overcome the problem.
I have tried that upgrading method by compiling sources and binaries as well.
Instead of trying the cumbersome method of updating packages from rh6 to all the way to 9 thru the enable disable compile method which requires loads of precious time, its much better to install rh9 from scratch, and do some little tweaking and customization to optimize system wide performance.
previous versions of redhat were very light. like 7, 7.1,7.3
and now the new redhat 8 and 9 are very heavy. for a pc with 64 mb of ram its very difficult to work in GUI after only 5 minutes.
i am afraid whats redhat future plans for their next version.at least 128 mb ram should be recomended if you wanna run GUI easily.
and now the new redhat 8 and 9 are very heavy. for a pc with 64 mb of ram its very difficult to work in GUI after only 5 minutes.
i am afraid whats redhat future plans for their next version.at least 128 mb ram should be recomended if you wanna run GUI easily.
newbie,
Aren't you confusing Redhat with the apps bundled in it? Isn't Debian going to take more or less the same amount of memory if you install and run the same apps? If you think XFree86 is too memory intensive, don't run the GUI. If you think KDE is too bix, run fluxbox. You need to take into consideration their target market. If they need to target the desktop in any shape or form, the console doesn't cut it, and gui apps are going to be memory intensive. Doesn't mean you can't run Redhat on an older box. Just that the default is more intensive (The new firewall box at work runs Redhat 9 on a 400MHz box with 128 MB RAM).
I just don't understand the popular complaint of Redhat being too large.
Aren't you confusing Redhat with the apps bundled in it? Isn't Debian going to take more or less the same amount of memory if you install and run the same apps? If you think XFree86 is too memory intensive, don't run the GUI. If you think KDE is too bix, run fluxbox. You need to take into consideration their target market. If they need to target the desktop in any shape or form, the console doesn't cut it, and gui apps are going to be memory intensive. Doesn't mean you can't run Redhat on an older box. Just that the default is more intensive (The new firewall box at work runs Redhat 9 on a 400MHz box with 128 MB RAM).
I just don't understand the popular complaint of Redhat being too large.
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Bingo fawad!
Well said!
B.t.W u guyz say that rh9 is slow on 64 mb ram.
Have u guyz tried running win xp on 64 mb ram? it will run like a tortoise!!
so the thing is that These dayz a minimum amount of 128 mb ram is recommended, be it for windows or for linux.
I am using Redhat Linux 9 on a system with 300 mhz celeron 2 processor, 256 mb ram, 32 mb agp card, and 40 gb hdd.It runs absolutely fine.
As fawad said, it all depends on how many memory intensive applications you are supposed to run, how well u configure and optimize ur system and it all depends on your requirements.
As i always say:
System Speed is directly propotional to your requirements hehe...
Well said!
B.t.W u guyz say that rh9 is slow on 64 mb ram.
Have u guyz tried running win xp on 64 mb ram? it will run like a tortoise!!
so the thing is that These dayz a minimum amount of 128 mb ram is recommended, be it for windows or for linux.
I am using Redhat Linux 9 on a system with 300 mhz celeron 2 processor, 256 mb ram, 32 mb agp card, and 40 gb hdd.It runs absolutely fine.
As fawad said, it all depends on how many memory intensive applications you are supposed to run, how well u configure and optimize ur system and it all depends on your requirements.
As i always say:
System Speed is directly propotional to your requirements hehe...
so now you all are admitting that linux GUI's are very very resource hungry.
and thats also one of the biggest hurdles in use of linux.
normally people dont know flux box or xfree86 they just wanna run the linux with GUI.
but if you compare
mandrake9 gnome with redhat 8gnome(almost same applets)
and
slackware gnome with redhat gnome(you can say slackware has not zillion of useless GUI tools)
they are better than redhat.because all distributions modify xfree86 and gnome or kde according to their needs.
offcourse the quality of new versions is good but on the amount of very more resources which is not a very good ting.
when mozilla runs in redhat8 gnome it takes atleast 25 mb of ram.
so kde or gnome in linux are not for poor PC's.
and thats also one of the biggest hurdles in use of linux.
normally people dont know flux box or xfree86 they just wanna run the linux with GUI.
but if you compare
mandrake9 gnome with redhat 8gnome(almost same applets)
and
slackware gnome with redhat gnome(you can say slackware has not zillion of useless GUI tools)
they are better than redhat.because all distributions modify xfree86 and gnome or kde according to their needs.
offcourse the quality of new versions is good but on the amount of very more resources which is not a very good ting.
when mozilla runs in redhat8 gnome it takes atleast 25 mb of ram.
so kde or gnome in linux are not for poor PC's.
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Well this has remained a hot issue, as to which distribution is the best.
Well , as i always say, we must not forget, that most distros are same in the sense that they use the same core.They use the same kernel written by Linus Trovalds and available at kernel.org.
They use the same packages like xmms for mp3s, gnome or kde for the desktop and most of all the same XFREE86 and X. Only 10 %, of the softwares included in the distro are programmed by the distro maker itself.Rest are those written by 3rd party people/companies...for example gnome, kde or xmms
So the point is, which distro u use doesnt make much difference, if u are Good at linux!
The main difference between the distros is how they CUSTOMIZE and ORGANIZE the packages like how they customize gnome or Xfree86,and what packages they choose, and what extra programs and configuration tools they add by themselves.
So the point here is, there are tons of distros available there days.Most of them are same, in the aspects i already mentioned.
Also RedHat has long been the leader in the distro field.
Mandrake , if u dont know, is a derivative of Redhat.
Most other distros like college linux, are derivatives of distros like redhat,mandrake or slackware
Let me put it this way:
Use the distro that best suits your needs
Donot Assume that there is a major speed/performance difference between the distros.There may be a small difference but not such a major one.Also it all depends on what packages u choose to install, how well you configure and tweak your system...
Donot bother others by saying use this distro and not that one!!!!!!!
Well , as i always say, we must not forget, that most distros are same in the sense that they use the same core.They use the same kernel written by Linus Trovalds and available at kernel.org.
They use the same packages like xmms for mp3s, gnome or kde for the desktop and most of all the same XFREE86 and X. Only 10 %, of the softwares included in the distro are programmed by the distro maker itself.Rest are those written by 3rd party people/companies...for example gnome, kde or xmms
So the point is, which distro u use doesnt make much difference, if u are Good at linux!
The main difference between the distros is how they CUSTOMIZE and ORGANIZE the packages like how they customize gnome or Xfree86,and what packages they choose, and what extra programs and configuration tools they add by themselves.
So the point here is, there are tons of distros available there days.Most of them are same, in the aspects i already mentioned.
Also RedHat has long been the leader in the distro field.
Mandrake , if u dont know, is a derivative of Redhat.
Most other distros like college linux, are derivatives of distros like redhat,mandrake or slackware
Let me put it this way:
Use the distro that best suits your needs
Donot Assume that there is a major speed/performance difference between the distros.There may be a small difference but not such a major one.Also it all depends on what packages u choose to install, how well you configure and tweak your system...
Donot bother others by saying use this distro and not that one!!!!!!!