RH and XP

[bof]

Michael Hipp wrote:

> Joel Hammer wrote:
>
>> Regarding Net Llama's comment, if you want to learn linux, there is 
>> nothing wrong with using an older distribution.
>
> All true, but I'd still recommend he go ahead and download RH 9.0. By 
> having a boxed set he has manuals, and I assume that might be the draw 
> of it. And the RH manuals are quite good for the most part. But 98% of 
> the stuff in the in the older manuals will still apply and the rest 
> can be gleaned from the online RH docs. I still use my RH 7.3 books 
> when fiddling with RH 9.0. 


Of course, he can download the documentation for older versions also: 
all of the manuals should be available as .rpm files. They might be 
available as an .iso image called the documentation CD, if he can find 
an older ftp site, but I think that they were also available as 
individual files.

As an aside, this is the second comment this morning on this list about 
which distro to use when learning Linux. It used to be (even up to last 
year) that for those who wanted to REALLY, REALLY learn Linux were 
pointed towards Slackware as so much of it had to be set up manually via 
configuration files --- which was considered to be a good learning 
experience. Of course, one problem with this is that Slackware uses the 
BSD-style init scripts, and uses the .tgz "package manager" so that 
those using it as a learning tool would not get the knowledge of the Sys 
V init setup and .rpm that seems to have become the de facto standard 
for Linux distributions.

But has Red Hat really become so dominant that it is now the standard 
when it comes to learning Linux?

And more importantly to me, when I dump RH 7.3 at the end of the year 
from RH not supporting it any more and go back to Slackware, will I 
someday be the only Slackware user left in the world? <g>

BOF