Fedora 6 "Zod" (instead of Vista)

[CrAz3D]

Since Vista was corrupt, or something, I'm gonna try Fedora again.

Hope I can get this to work.

Also hope I can get it to work easier than I did last time ;)

[iago]

I've heard that Ubuntu is easier to use than Fedora.  But who knows? 

[nslay]

Since Vista was corrupt, or something, I'm gonna try Fedora again.

Hope I can get this to work.

Also hope I can get it to work easier than I did last time ;)

At work, I have fedora on my workstation ... it sucks.  I don't recommend it.

[CrAz3D]

I sorta liked Fedora, maybe I'll try to bust into ubuntu first...hmm

[iago]

At work, I have fedora on my workstation ... it sucks.  I don't recommend it.

Very descriptive!  A co-worker of mine loves FC6.  What do you not like about it? 

You're an experienced *nix user, and the guy at work isn't, nor is Craz3d.  So maybe it would suit him?

[CrAz3D]

At work, I have fedora on my workstation ... it sucks.  I don't recommend it.

Very descriptive!  A co-worker of mine loves FC6.  What do you not like about it? 

You're an experienced *nix user, and the guy at work isn't, nor is Craz3d.  So maybe it would suit him?

AGREED!

I guess I'll bust out with my ubunt cd once I'm done burning FC6 dvd.

[CrAz3D]

Can I install ubuntu or Fedora on a logical partition or only primary?

[Joe]

Can I install ubuntu or Fedora on a logical partition or only primary?

A kernel has to be in a primary. I think.

[iago]

Can I install ubuntu or Fedora on a logical partition or only primary?

I don't think it matters. 

[Chavo]

It doesn't matter.  You will however, need to install the boot loader to the MBR rather than the beginning of the partition if you choose a logical partition.

[nslay]

At work, I have fedora on my workstation ... it sucks.  I don't recommend it.

Very descriptive!  A co-worker of mine loves FC6.  What do you not like about it? 

You're an experienced *nix user, and the guy at work isn't, nor is Craz3d.  So maybe it would suit him?

Reasons I don't like it:
a) It features the "latest and greatest" gcc 4.x ... it so cutting edge it couldn't compile Window Maker because of some assembler bug!!  I downloaded gcc 3.4.4, the one FreeBSD has...and voila, window maker compiled fine.
b) It comes with an assortment of crap I don't need nor want ... like Gnome! And talk about modules...try an lsmod, that's rediculous!
c) It's made by red hat, I hate red hat ... just my opinion.

I mostly dislike it because of b.
If I could, I would clean it up ... but seeing as its work's computer, I can't do much. 

[iago]

Not that I like Fedora, but I want to play Devil's Advocate:

a) It features the "latest and greatest" gcc 4.x ... it so cutting edge it couldn't compile Window Maker because of some assembler bug!!  I downloaded gcc 3.4.4, the one FreeBSD has...and voila, window maker compiled fine.

Newbs often don't compile, and if they do they will probably won't be compiling WindowMaker.  I'm sure that gcc has either fixed or will fix that bug. :P

b) It comes with an assortment of crap I don't need nor want ... like Gnome! And talk about modules...try an lsmod, that's rediculous!

For a new user, having a wide selection is a good thing.  More stuff to play with and learn about.  And more modules means 2 things:
- Less is compiled into the kernel, which is generally good
- .. without losing hardware support

c) It's made by red hat, I hate red hat ... just my opinion.

Good reason for you, not so much for him.  As long as he's not using SuSE/Novell I'm fine.

[CrAz3D]

I've installed ubuntu & fedora...so far I'm preferring fedora.

I was this close || to having the ndiswrapper working, too.  Just needed to get lspci command to work, but instead I fucked it all up & removed pcsutils & now I am reinstalling fedora just to make it simpler for me.  its nuts man

[nslay]

b) It comes with an assortment of crap I don't need nor want ... like Gnome! And talk about modules...try an lsmod, that's rediculous!

For a new user, having a wide selection is a good thing.  More stuff to play with and learn about.  And more modules means 2 things:
- Less is compiled into the kernel, which is generally good
- .. without losing hardware support

Loadable modules is something a newbie should never need.  Enabling loadable module support can be a huge security risk (e.g. Ever heard of rootkits?  They are usually loadable kernel modules).  Linux could never dream of compiling every single driver into the kernel because it uses (as I understand) a 2 stage boot.  The second stage can only load so much into memory.  This is why the Linux kernel is bziped.
Its worth noting, *BSD is a 3 stage boot, and GENERIC features nearly all drivers compiled into the kernel.  Some drivers are modules for common sense reasons (like ACPI).
NetBSD has an option to disable loadable kernel modules in entirety ... that is a very good idea.  This option is enabled by default.
All *BSDs offer a securelevel tunable that makes the system immutable (no loadable modules, no overwriting /bin and /sbin, no overwriting system libraries, etc... ) ... unfortunately, this hinders software like Xorg, that need features like mmap, /dev/mem and /dev/kmem.

Digressing, over the summer when I took the linux device driver course, one of my classmates was working on a kernel module (Called Guardian) that detected foul play within the kernel.  This included overwriting the symbol table, overwriting some sort of module table, and so forth.  The module itself, made itself invisible by playing with some sort of module table so mallicious kernel modules could not easily detect it.  It did other things like take message digests of very common and important kernel functions and correct any changes.
Very cool stuff, here is more information:
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/projects/sarlou/

The moral of the story is, loadable kernel modules can be very dangerous.  The *BSDs offer some protection like securelevels ... but its generally not enough since one can disable the securelevel scripts and reboot the system.

[CrAz3D]

This is ridiculous!! >:(

I can't find the correct driver for my wireless card.

(I'm on an HP)
-lspci manager says Dell Wireless Card...so I download that & try to install it on XP, error, hardware not found or something.
-Instructions say I can just use bcmwl5.sys file from sys32/drivers along with the .inf file in WINDOWS/inf that mentions bcmwl5.sys.  I find both of those file & use the ndiswrapper but it still says invalid driver.

SO, does anyone know how I might be able to find out exactly what drivers I'd need?
I've looked in the device manager & found the bcmwl5.sys file that it refers to & I mentioned above, but this ndiswrapper doesnt like it :(