Reading a LINUX partitioned HD with Windows?

[Mini D]

I loaded FC3 and then FC4. FC4 is definately a better build and it addressed some problems I was having with sendmail not working.

LINUX has the ability to be set up using only the things you actually need. Unfortunately, you have to have been working with it since 1997 to fully understand how to do this, or switch over from UNIX and go through a minor learning curve. For the most part, LINUX is cumbersome and poorly documented and a heavy dose of tribal knowledge is required to use it properly.

Fedora is a waste of time and effort. It is intended to be a complete windows substitute. I could accept that it doesn't run windows applications, but cannot accept that it has trouble running LINUX applications too. I had more lockups and odd behavior with Fedora than with any other OS I've used.

I ran a Win2k server that I would have to blow the dust off to use. It worked for 4 years without interuption. The only time it was shut off is when we lost power  to the house. That would happen about 1 month (have one month with a few to several outages) out of the year. That means it usually ran for 11 months without any kind of problems.

I'm using Windows 2k3 advanced server right now. I don't have an idea of how well it will work past the infamous 49.5 day mark that XP suffers from.

LINUX is far from being a viable option for an OS in the home. It doesn't even come close to touching the ease and practicality of Windows. The bare-bones server user might tell you differently, but that oppinion is about as skewed and un-valuable as I've seen when the box is sitting at your computer desk ready to be used.

[beet1e]

MiniD - thanks for that ^ - very useful.

For my own uses, I'd be interested to know more about W2003 Server. Is it an OS that could be used as a home based OS? I've seen XP, and seen some of the problems that people have with it, and would rather go the W2003 Server route, if it would work for me. I must admit to being put off XP when I did a fresh install of it, and one of the first things I saw was a dog or a cow running across the screen. I hate those MS gimmicks. W2000 is free of them, and I imagine W2003S is too.

As for the Linux system, my DB2 Administrator friend has taken the PC home with him, as I have ruled out Linux for my own purposes. He needs to get DB2 up and running but is having problems. You mentioned that FC4 is better than FC3. Is there any other flavour of Linux that you could recommend for this? If you know, please let me know where I can find it.

Beet

[Skuzzy]

Not sure what all these FC things are, but MD is right, if not a little harsh.

Hard for me to actually comment on the learning curve aspect, as I have been using UNIX for so long, it comes naturally to me.

But, I concur Linux is not ready for prime time.  No where near ready for the end user.  However, it is still a great server OS.  I still rank it better than any server OS MS ships in many ways.

[Mini D]

My recent LINUX experience has left me more pissed off than ever skuzzy. Sorry about the tone, but that's how any LINUX discussion is going to sound from me for about a year. I should be over it by then.

Beat, I haven't really been running Win2k3 long enough to get a feel for reliability. The do tone down some of the help stuff, so things like the "windows assistant" will not show up. But, this is a feature you can disable with XP.

The only issue I've really had with 2003 so far has been that I can't load my camera software onto it. Fortunately, I can download the images via a card reader, but I'd like the plug and play option to work too. I realize this is not really that big of a thing, but it does highlight that some software/hardware won't work with 2003. It should all work with XP.