> RPM. what's your point? Point me at an RPM to install kernel 2.4.20 onto RH 7.0. This is actually a serious question as well as an effort to make my point.
> > Verified, Tested, Integrated and certified like MKD9 which you recommended > > against because it doesn't install, and can't run on the person's box? > > *laughs* wow, nice one. so because there was a particular hardware problem > with one particular version of one particular distribution, it means that > verifying and integrating binary software applications isn't a meaningful > advantage. > > what a load of crap. Why? You tried to make it sound like a binary distro means you don't need to worry about problem at install time. I disagree. Posts on this board back up what 've said. Binary installs offer no assurance than a particular package will work on a given system. Neither does Source based. > most linux systems have thousands of discrete bits of software that > interoperate with each other on many levels (libraries, IPC, network comm, > local file manip as in "configuration files"). these interactions can be > complex and even non-obvious. depending on how you build those various pieces > of software can determine how [well | if] they work with each other. the > rest should be obvious from there ... This is less an issue when there is simply less crap on the servers. Again, I'd give the advantage here to minimalist builds. Gentoo is an example of a source, Debian would be an example of binary. Either will be easier to admin that a box with unneccessary stuff installed everywhere. > for the last time kevin: i'm not talking about delivery (rpm, apt, emerge, > ports) i'm talking about source vs binary. you are having a hard time > differentiating between those concepts, i understand, but they are different. > you could deliver all your source via RPM and tweak & build from there, or > you could deliver all your binaries via emerge. that isn't the point at all. I'm articulating it poorly. Sorry. I do understand the difference. > i test the configurations and put it under load, yes. fortunately i don't have > to do anything else because all the rest of the integration needs and > requirements are taken care of for me by the distribution company i bought it > from. Like Microsoft has done? Mandrake as I've mentioned before? This isn't a slam on either company, or red hat, or anyone else. I simply think that a given product failure is not avoided simply by having a central authority do the compilation. > wow, you either have no idea what software integration testing involves or you > spend a LOT of time verifying your builds. i'm guessing the former. Probably the latter. This network goes totally live in April. Some aspects are already being tested. I think I test more than most people. > maybe it doesn't matter to you, maybe it works "good enough" for you... great. > but let me use an anology: just beause you haven't been killed not wearing a > seat belt yet doesn't mean that someone else may be smarter because they wear > a seat belt in preperation for a crash. it also doesn't mean that seat belts > don't save lives. Do you do maintenance cheaks on your auto, or simply trust that the manufacturer built it correctly? > i deffinitely believe that gentoo works for you. but that doesn't mean it's a > smart way to go in general. I'll wait for a response to the RH8 vs Gentoo post. > you do know that you can do a network install of just about any distro out > there, right? Not sure. I know I can install RH across a network. But I don't think I can install RH where it checks RPMfind, or RHN, or whatever to verify that every package it installs is the most current one. I'd love to be wrong about that though... Kev.
