Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Linux replacing NT/2000

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,257
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Nice work man.......Welcome to the LinWorld.............A world devoid of blue screen messages.........Stupid error messages and worst of all Exorbitant license fees > >

    Like your enthuasim keep us posted

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,959
    Rep Power
    25

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Feel free to laugh, cry, curse, shake your heads at my stupidity, wonder at my genius, and otherwise marvel that I have actually got it to work at all.
    Hmmm...

    I have gotten a copy of Red Hat 9 and have begun the installation with most of the default (AKA the Linux Chicken Installation Plan) options
    That is the approach I always recommend. Once you get familiar with Linux, you can do minimum installs, etc.

    Notice how similar it is to installing Windows 2000 Server?

    In the network option I setup the Linux machine as the DNS server as I do not have one presently and I plan to deploy DNS using Linux anyway. Good? Bad? What are your oppinions on this?
    Okay. Since you don't have DNS, I am assuming that you are running NT 4.0 and not Windows 2000 on your servers. What clients are you using?

    BIND (Linux DNS) is a solid product. However, I do not recommend using it with Active Directory since Active Directory requires dynamic updates for DNS.

    You can run it fine on a Samba network with Windows 2000 Professional clients or on a NT 4.0 domain.

    If you want to run Samba (Windows networking) you will need to disable the firewall. We can do that later.

    JALUG did a training session on DNS on Saturday. Sorry you missed it. We showed people how to set up Windows and Linux DNS.

    Now we get to the fun part, selecting all the options to be installed. Now, coming from a MS Windows background (I can hear the groans and imagine all the eyes rolling at that one
    Many of us use Windows. We have simply integrated Linux into our Windows environments. We can then have the best of both worlds.

    Man thats a long post. Oh well, more to come
    Not really. You should see some of the rants that people post. ;D

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Ok, it's 11:15 and the install is complete. I just setup the display settings and set the system to start with the gui (again I can hear the groans :and rebooted.

    The system restarted ok, as evidenced with the green [OK] in brackets.

    The system booted into the GUI and I have logged in.

    So far so good.

    I'm going to fool around and see what I can learn.

    I'll post any updates or questions later.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Ok, first problem, where do I go to change the display settings (resolution, color depth, etc) as well the the display type and monitor settings?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,257
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    [quote author=cmagnus link=board=8;threadid=1874;start=0#msg20286 date=1066066825]
    Ok, first problem, where do I go to change the display settings (resolution, color depth, etc) as well the the display type and monitor settings?
    [/quote]

    By typing the command redhat-config-xfree86 as root or from the GUI go System Settings ----> Display

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Thanks, trying it now but have two questions:

    1. Are the desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, etc.) normaly slow? (No windows quips please ;D)

    2. The setting right now is 1024X768 but the visual resolution looks 640X480. The icons are huge and so is ths task bar (it is called a task bar in Linux right? ???)


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    [quote author=jamrock link=board=8;threadid=1874;start=0#msg20259 date=1066060328]
    Hmmm...That is the approach I always recommend. Once you get familiar with Linux, you can do minimum installs, etc.

    Notice how similar it is to installing Windows 2000 Server?Okay. Since you don't have DNS, I am assuming that you are running NT 4.0 and not Windows 2000 on your servers. What clients are you using?

    BIND (Linux DNS) is a solid product. However, I do not recommend using it with Active Directory since Active Directory requires dynamic updates for DNS.

    You can run it fine on a Samba network with Windows 2000 Professional clients or on a NT 4.0 domain.

    If you want to run Samba (Windows networking) you will need to disable the firewall. We can do that later.

    JALUG did a training session on DNS on Saturday. Sorry you missed it. We showed people how to set up Windows and Linux DNS.Many of us use Windows. We have simply integrated Linux into our Windows environments. We can then have the best of both worlds.Not really. You should see some of the rants that people post. ;D
    [/quote]

    Ok here goes:

    1. The installation is pretty similar to a MS install if you use the GUI interface. Not sure how it would be otherwise and am too chicken to find out ;D

    2. We are using NT4 and WINS for name resolution.

    3. My clients are a mix of 98, me ;D, 2000 Pro, and XP Pro

    I have also just sorted out a major problem with the Linux machine. I tried pinging the machine from other PC's but got no response so I checked all the network settings and anything else that I thought could be causing this but no luck ???. Well a little birdy said "check the back of the machine" where I found the problem. The copper conductive signal transfer device AKA the patch cable was not connected ;D.

    Goes to show that sometimes the simple solution is often the correct solution 8)

    Anyway, I got the resolution problem sorted out and I even managed to get the browser on the Linux machine to see the internet through my ISA server so I know the network is functioning properly.

    Well, back to exploring. I will post as I go along.


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    Ok guys, two questions:

    1. How can I get into the Linux machine remotely and can I hvae a gui interface for remote use as well?

    2. How can I create a dual boot machine?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,446
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    i dont know much about linux but guru recommended realvnc once when i wanted to access my network remotely heres a link
    http://www.realvnc.com/what.html and its a free open source program.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,236
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re:Linux replacing NT/2000

    you can use ssh to adminster your machine remotely, this comes with all linux distros
    ssh has an option -X which will then allow you to launch remote applications (you will need another unix or linux box to do this though)

    if you want to adminster your machine from windows, via the commandline, you can use putty. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~s.../download.html

    For dual booting start here:
    http://www.jalug.org/search?SearchableText=dual+booting

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •