Installing Linux

[daydreamer]

Hello,

Linux as a server operation system is a very good one. You can install and configure Linux systems to replace important Windows services like SMB,DHCP etc.

I  had lots of Linux knowledge thanks to took a course in set up Linux webserver years ago
Later years I ran a project  to  increase my skills in  web programming using VS ,it testruns on light version of MS server
Probably a ms server would be  easier for my dream on copy and paste masm  source  onto server and server assembles and links it for you ?

Now jochen maybe could test do it with uasm ,reading code from website ?
Evolve his code that checks if mask forum has been updated or not

[sinsi]

Hi Sinsi,

Ubuntu does the job. You can also try a member of the Red Hat family, a RHEL derivative. Unfortunately, CentOS took another path for the development but you could try Oracle Linux. Rocky Linux and Alma Linux are the other candidates to replace CentOS.

heh
I just picked one, it seems to work OK, I don't need a GUI, although Webmin might pass as one?
I am always using Google to find idiot guides to something simple, because any forum you ask a newbie question in is instantly full of what seems like 14-year olds 

[Vortex]

Hello Sinsi,

I am always using Google to find idiot guides to something simple, because any forum you ask a newbie question in is instantly full of what seems like 14-year olds

Same case in some Windows forums too. Not much to expect from the younger generations.

[bugthis]

The best example I can offer is the hot stinking mess that is Wikipedia, which is kind of the ultimate open-source project. Sure, a lot of the articles end up being OK and accurate, primarily the technical ones that are fortunate to have people editing them who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. But then there are the tens of thousands of other articles, badly written, confusing, fought over, inaccurate ...

Well no. I wish that were true. But even the technical articles contain rubbish. Because there are doorman there with a lot of half-knowledge who think they know something but then don't and then prevent any technical improvement. They don't understand anything about the technical process under the hood, they only believe what they see on the screen and draw their conclusions from that.

I really tried hard to improve a lot of technical articles, but they won't let me.

Examples:
1. They think Windows 95 is a GUI interface for DOS instead of an operating system.
They see and assume: "DOS boots first."
Their conclusion: "Windows 95 is not an OS."

2. They define operating systems as something that must be able to boot by itself.
They see and assume: "DOS boots first."
Their conclusion: "Windows 95 can't be an OS."

If you then point out to them that their definition of an OS is incorrect, they will not accept the criticism. They do not do this even if you refer to sources on how an operating system is defined in computer science courses at universities. This also applies if you show them that their own definition (see above) is incorrect by pointing out to them that DOS does not boot without BIOS.

3. They prefer false reasons:

Direct programming of the graphics card as in DOS is not possible under Windows anyway, since Windows is multitasking capable and requires the graphics card for the user interface itself.

instead of correct reasons:

Direct programming of the graphics card as under DOS is not possible under Windows anyway, because Windows runs in Protected Mode and the kernel shields direct access to the hardware by user space programs.

And the moderators call themselves administrators instead of moderators. But they are not administrators. They administrate nothing, if so, they only moderate.
And they are biased and let serious mistakes made by their own people of moderators go, but if it is a simple user or an IP, they are immediately blocked.
And in many cases, for no reason at all; they block you, when if you use their reporting system to report another user. In such a case, it is not the person who started the vandalism who will be blocked, but the person who reported it as such.
Yes, you will be blocked for reports about vandalism.

I've experienced all of that before. What Wikipedia needs are temporary moderators. Anyone who has been a moderator for four years shouldn't be able to become a moderator again. Otherwise you'll never get rid of this corruption.