TonyB wrote:

> >You really only need two: root and swap.  You should have a swap
> >partition (unless you have gobs of memory), and Linux prefers (very
> >strongly) a partition dedicated to that purpose.
>
> OK, so for POV, and all my other future Linuxing needs I only require two?
> That should be easy enough. BTW, I have 128MB of memory, is that enough?
> (OK, stupid question, I know... POV can eat that up very fast...)

Although some installations mention having a separate partition for /home
I guess part of that is so that you can completely blow away the Linux system
and re-install while preserving any user data you have.

Also, if your computer's BIOS handles it, you might be able to boot and
install straight from the CD.

> >It's all very modular, highly customizable, and still in
> >development. :-P
>
> A little too modular. :| Let me review this: X Windows is the base, upon
> which I add KDE, which gives me more interactivity between the GUI and my
> mouse, and then fvwm/Elightenment/AfterStep (which is best?) add the
> Minimize, Maximize and Kill to the window edge? Sounds complicated... :/

1) Linux gives you the core OS.

2) X-Windows gives you a graphical display.

3) A window manager running on top of that gives you frames for the windows,
helps them move, etc.
(I'd suggest using Enlightenment, with maybe Window Maker if you reaaaaaaly
don't like Enlightenment)

4) On top of X and the window manager runs your desktop environment, if you
so choose to have one. This is usually either KDE (booo hiss) or GNOME.


> >LILO should be an option (not sure how well it gets along with Win98).
> >I don't know about Partition Magic.
>
> Not PM, but the Boot Manager from it. I think it and Windows coexist
> happily. I've tried it before (with '95).

From what I read a little, sticking with LILO is the better thing to do. I
scanned the newsgroups this last spring when I bought Partition Magic and
first installed Linux at home.


> >There's a religious war between KDE and Gnome, and Red Hat sided with
> >Gnome, largely for ideological reasons.
>
> Odd. Such as?

Well, KDE is built on top of the Qt widget library which was not really open
until recently. Details can be drudged up if needed, but part of the gripe
extends to the current stuff, where only the Linux version of their (Troll
tech) stuff is free, but it costs $$ for other platforms (MS Windows, etc.)

Gnome is built on top of GTK+, which is completely open source and free (as
in free speach). It also is being ported to Win32 and BeOS as we speak.


> >Some people preferred KDE
> >(which is more mature than Gnome) and built a KDE-oriented distribution
> >around Red Hat (something like what Red Hat would be like had they
> >chosen KDE instead of Gnome).  That's how I understand Mandrake,
> >anyways.
>
> Ooohhh... then yay, Mandrake! ^_^  (Right?)

Also, as of the later versions of Red Hat, KDE has been present as an option.



BTW, if forgot to mention. I'd strongly suggest going with Red Hat 6.0 over
5.2. Among other things, there is the change from the 2.0.x kernel to the
2.2.x series. If you want, you can get the free version from places like
CheapBytes for $1.99 + S/H for a bootable install CD. (that's all I ever use)

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message