Redhat vs Mandrake

Which would you install for a desktop system? I am building a system for my mother and think one of these would give me the best chance to make stable yet user friendly OS.

I plan to set it up so that she can do her basic typing/printing/web surfing needs. She does not need more than that, so I figure linux is the way to go. I plan to get it set up hardware wise where there aren't linux compatability issues. And I already have star office on the machine she uses now so it won't be a big jump for her.

So which of the two would you reccomend? I am kind of leaning toward mandrake, but I have copies of both. Windows products are not really an option right now because of budget, but even if money was not a concern I would still lean toward linux because of the stability and security.

Once they're both setup and configured you wont have a problem with either of them. I find Mandrake a little easier to install and configure as a workstation.

They're both easy to do, but Mandrake detects the hardware better.

I like to use Redhat for my company's servers because is has better configuration tools, and for my own use I like Debian, but I don't reccomend it for your mother, although my mother can use mine to do everything your mother needs, but I had to do a lot more setting up to make it mother proof.

I would recommend Mandrake.

It'd be a bit more user friendly, would probably support more obscure hardware better, and its compiled for i585, so it'd run a little faster than Redhat, which is compiled for i386.

Of course, XP is stable and friendly too, but its also expensive.

thanks

I was leaning to Mandrake. I have checked the hardware database and made sure the stuff I am planning on using runs under linux, but having a more automatic config is nice.

I hadn't really considered other distros, mainly because redhat and mandrake are more "consumer" oriented. I had wondered a little about corel, but I figured if it was a good option, it would pop up more. A shame as the idea was a good concept. I think Linux can be a great mainstream OS, but it has to overcome alot of inertia in terms of microsoft. You can do everything in linux and more than windows can. But I guess I am preaching to the choir.

Well Corel is Debian based, and I think that's where the future of linux lies. The Redhat rpm based systems are annoying, and I always have problems with them. The debian deb packages are more sane. Only thing they're missing is a nice installer. There are a few like Progney, which died out, and Libranet that are Debian based but have a nicer installation.

Only reason I don't like Mandrake and Redhat is because they're still using the 6 years old RPM system. They update everything except that. Well they update it, but it's basically the same.

Just today I tried to install openldap on a Redhat server here and I had to download a bunch of crap to fix the dependencies. With Debian it'll do that on it's own.

Yea, pkg is definately superior to rpm.

But as far as a new user is concerned, they won't get there for a while. Much simpler for them to just install it all in one fell swoop and go from there, until they learn the ropes.

I've tried Mandrake and RedHat, and i find RedHat MUCH easier to install, configure, and use. Once i get more used to linux though, i'll move on to some sort of debian, they sound really good, but too complex for me!

Only two problems i ever had with RedHat (so far) is it had a little problem booting the first time, but a boot floppy let me get in and fix it; and it had trouble with X, but after 10 minutes of fiddling with it i got it up and running. I've had horrible luck with mandrake, i've tried 7.0, 8.0, and 8.1, and all of them don't seem to like me for whatever reason. Just my two cents...

Slackware

Hmm, never had a problem with Slackware. Its pretty simple to install, and the configuration is easy. If you need to change something you just uncomment a couple lines in a text file. You dont need to bother with bloated GUI configuration utilities, and a kernel compile is very simple, ensuring that your kernel will be as efficient as possible. Also, the package system is very simple to use.

Mandrake - definitly!

Re: Slackware

adamjaskie said:

Hmm, never had a problem with Slackware. Its pretty simple to install, and the configuration is easy. If you need to change something you just uncomment a couple lines in a text file. You dont need to bother with bloated GUI configuration utilities, and a kernel compile is very simple, ensuring that your kernel will be as efficient as possible. Also, the package system is very simple to use.

Click to expand...

Are you mad? Slackware is the hardest distribution to get installed and configured. And their lack of a decent packaging system makes it a price choice for compiling everything, which I used to to. It's so much faster when your OS is compiled for your CPU, but it's time consuming and can be a head ache getting all the devel libs.

Yea, Slackware is only good for a newbie if they really want to dive into the cold water first, and are willing to trust themselves to stick to it and learn everything.

If you are transitioning from Windows and need something similar for a while, then Mandrake or Redhat are your bets.

I tried mandrake first before Slackware. Mandrake was way to simplified. After about 2 months i did not learn anything. So, i talked to some friends, and they convinced me to try slackware. It was a little hard at first, but it forces you to learn. Also, compiling your kernel is not too hard. When you install slackware, it installs everything you need to compile the kernel, and you are going to have to compile the kernel eventually, to upgrade to a newer one.

Slackware's packaging system is not too bad. I have had no problems with it. There is a handy CURSES based packaged management tool that lets you install and remove packages, or you can just use the command line.

Also, there is nothing wrong with compiling programs from source. If you compile a program, which doesnt take too long, and is not very complex, you end up with a binary that is built to run at its best on your system.

I also disagree that slackware is poor for newbies. While it may be hard for a total newbie to computers, it should not be difficult for someone who has experience with DOS/Windows. Just because an installation is not graphical does not mean that it is automatically hard to deal with. It just doesnt look as "fischer price + microsoft = windows xp"

adamjaskie said:

"fischer price + microsoft = windows xp"

Click to expand...

I like that! I'll have to remember it for future use!