Well I finished my Linux/UNIX class turns out that Linux/UNIX class was all on the programming side not the systems administration side.
Shell Programming blah blah blah I got one week left thank god.
shell programming is a big part of linux administration.. the main reason for shell programming is automating mundane sysadmin tasks.. so pay attention.. you may not like it, but if you ever get a sysadmin job, you'll be glad you payed attention
I can relate to MAD_DOG a lot on this. Last semester I finished my Unix class, and it was shell programming most of it. While I agree with you knalb on the programming being important (I'm a programmer myself) but most of the chunk of the knowlege of an administrator relies on the actually hands on portion - setting up servers, maintaining, using several utilities, configuring those utilies, and having overall good judgement about what's good and not when it comes to networks overall. I unfortunately didn't get any of that from the class. It was strictly programming.
The class was called "Unix and C++" and ironically, we didn't even cover C++! It was Bash and Perl most of it. While I still liked the class (we coded several admin utilies from scratch ourselves and also a server in Perl) I wish we could've covered some hands on stuff. You can't expect much from a university class I guess.
Yeap. Perl originally was for shell scripting, taking the best features of the unix commands and adding its own enhancements to the language (from bash, tcsh, kshell, etc). Now they have perl mods to handle web requests, database connectivity, etc., due to the increase popularity of web apps.
I still think Perl is the best language for text manipulation.
ok, i've decide to dive into the Linux thing. i'm either gonna load my WinCommander(bought it last yr or so & never looked @ it, ver 2000 Deluxe) & part my Compq 5345 (K5(6?)400MHz Athlon sys or just reformat & dedicate the sys to Linux. a few ?s: 1) any advise as 2 pros/cons of partitioning & using multiple OS's (in this case orig Win98SE load & Linux), or just wiping & dedicating sys; 2) regardless of whether i have multiple/dedicated boot, r there any issues y'all know about concering my particular sys & Linux... 3) which leads to what distribution? i've always heard so much about RedHat being the prevelant package, but from what i saw mentioned on this board & speaking 2 1 associate @ work (who's NOT a Linux user) its seems that possibly Mandrake is also a widely used dis.
thoughts & suggetions would b greatly appreciated! :)
Personally, I have an AMD Athlon XP dedicated to WinXP and an Intel P4 dedicated to Red Hat. If you're going to dual boot, have win installed first, then install linux on a second partition and use GRUB (a boot loader which comes built into the installs of many distributions, including RedHat 7+ (before that it was only LiLo) - but grub is better than lilo).
In any case ... I've always used Red Hat and I'm totally happy with it. It's the best in terms of balancing ease of use with power. Slackware linux, on the other hand, is a real hardcore distribution - be prepared to put a lot of effort into learning it, but once you do, you'll KNOW linux backwards and forwards
now for Mandrake ... mandrake boasts the most easy to use linux system - never used it myself, but supposedly it's got all these wizards and lotsa guis to help you out - it's supposed to be for windows users who want to get their feet wet in linux
that's good and dandy and all, but the problem with mandrake is that it is based on redhat. basically all mandrake is, is a redhat core with extra guis and nicer graphics on top of it to make it easier to use (sorta where apple is going with OSX -> unix with a nice gui)
the problem with this is that mandrake is always behind redhat in releasing stuff ... for example, redhat will come out with a new version. then, mandrake will take that new version and work on it, spruce it up, and distribute it
basically, just the redhat CORE is used in mandrake all of redhat's proprietary stuff (such as up2date for easy package updates) isn't used - mandrake has its own update services for that ;)
now of course if you were to go with slackware, you'd have to do it all manually ... but slackware is for geeks anyway :o
thanx TTG! it seems like Mandrake is 2 far to the left, Slackware is 2 far to the right and RedHat's down the middle - being a middle of the road type myself that seems like a perfect fit! 'course, soon as i master RedHat Slackware might not seem so extreme! ;)
sounds like a good choice (but of course I'm not impartial having always gone with redhat LOLOL)
it seems like a good idea to start out with redhat and then maybe move on to try your luck with slackware
of course ... people are very proud of the distributions they choose to use -> slackware ppl will always say slackware is the best, mandrake ppl will always say mandrake is the best, and, of course, redhat ppl will always say redhat is the best (which, everyone knows, it is LOLOL)
in any case ... I have used redhat since version 5.2 and they are up to 7.3 now. to be honest, the linux geek who first introduced me to linux started me out with redhat, but meanwhile he, himself, has always used slackware (go figure) -> (btw, yes, ron, i'm talking about u, feel free to comment)
There's still years to come 'till I become a Linux user. I just can't find anything useable for the work I do. I agree that it might be a better OS than Windows, but I go more for useability.
I usually install Red Hat on one of my computers to do small projects from time to time. Afterwards I uninstall it because I have so much hardware it can't detect any of it. I've tried TurboLinux, RedHat, and Debian - my favorite is RedHat. I think it has one of the best installations (not really, but compared to the others) out there and it's easy to configure. Also I like it's popularity.
main reason why i'm considering picking it up (i had actually decided TO pick it up, but then i spoke 2 u about the Oracle/SQL thing!) is b'cuz a coupla prog i was thinking of learning - in particular Oracle, starting with PL/SQL have versions that will run on Linux, which i can afford to do pretty quickly w/o much considering; for me to go to the expense of setting up a Win2K/SQL server environ will take a bit of justifying....
Hey, If you have an unused system kickin around then i would recomend putin redhat on as the only system, one of the more powerfull fetures of linux is its network functions, load up the full system everything from the disks, then as you get in to it, start playin around with samba, dhcp, dns etc and use your windows box as the client.
using linux as a client machine just seems like a waist, when it can do so much more