I a strange techie, I guess. For me computers are only good for work. They do not entertain me other than the a DVD on the weekend. The last computer game I played was on a C=64. And I have less than 0 use for game consoles. Heck, I haven't watched a TV show since I moved to Calgary more than 3 years ago.
Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Lauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Linux Work > I can't disagree with you on that one.... Gentoo and other source based > distros offer a lot more then the binary ones do. But more care has to be > taken when you use a source based distro on a production server. If you > have the time for this then all power to ya :) It will probably save you > a lot of headaches too since you aren't using RPM. I don't like RPM > either, which is why I haven't used Redhat on my desktop for a long time > and why I've been using Gentoo. RPM is fine for the average user be it > workstation or server but it absolutely sucks for the power user or for > someone who wants more out of their boxes. I've always used Redhat for my > production servers because I only usually have problems with RPM when it > comes to things that are running on the desktop (KDE, Linux DVD, etc). > But, when I get home I play on Gentoo :) > > >> > I stand by the comparison. Where RH or Windows needs patches and > >> fixed installed after the fact, Gentoo is current as of the date of > >> install. > >> > >> which is why modern installers support automatically grabbing updates > >> that > > are > >> available once the base install is done! > >> > >> > The time spent compiling is irrelevant. > >> > >> the time spent compiling is completely relevant, since you'll be doing > >> it until the day you get rid of that system or stop updating it. but > >> what's > > more > >> important is the ability to verify the integration of packages you > >> build > > from > >> source. binaries are far, far more easy to accomplish this with... > >> > >> > Wasn't Aaron's advice for someone in the last 2 days to install Mdk > >> 8.2 rather than 9, simply because 9 was "unfriendly" on his system? > >> > >> no it wasn't. i suggested trying another distro such as SuSe 8.1 ... i > > didn't > >> suggest going backwards, though they are free to if they wish. some of > >> us aren't stuck on pushing a single distro as the One True Thing and > >> have no problems with someone trying MDK9, finding it isn't "for > >> them", and trying SuSe 8.1 (or whatever else)... > >> > > > > If you check my past posts, I clearly do not think Gentoo is the only > > way to go. I've recommended SUSE, I've recommended Red Hat, I've > > recommended Knoppix. They each have their purposes. You clearly > > understand that each distro has a particular target. > > > > In the last month, I've installed RH 7.3 and Gentoo for servers. One > > isn't better or worse, each is suited to a particular purpose. > > > > > >> > Gentoo is simply up to date when I install it. Period. My servers > > don't > >> > go into production until I'm happy with how they are working. > >> (Linux, > > or > >> > Legacy). > >> > >> wow, just like all the other distros i've installed in the last 2 > >> years. > > > > This thread started out focusing on install time. Installing an old > > package with the intention of immediately replacing it is a waste of > > time. Should people install KDE 3.00 then every version up to current, > > or should they just install the current version? Gentoo's packaging > > system assures me that I have current the first time out. > > > > Perhaps the ultimate would be a system where RH went to a central > > repository and pulled current RPMs when it first installed. That is a > > goal for Gentoo as well. But that doesn't change one aspect of the > > problem. Precompiled binarys are "best fit" guesses. Samba RPMs will > > not support various aspects of PDCs when installed from RPM. They NEED > > to be installed manually. How many configure options are there for KDE? > > Does an RPM support all of them, or none of them? > > > > > >> no. control during install doesn't mean a lot, especially since that > >> represents one or two hours of what will be a years-long experience > >> with that machine. perhaps i'm just speaking from having dealt with > >> lots of systems for years at a time. > > > > Control does mean a lot. Control during the install means that the > > system when it goes into production will be running at its best. I've > > also administrated systems on a global scale for years at a time. > > Setting it up correctly in the first place is by far the biggest issue, > > as far as I'm concerned. I've mentioned Novell before, and I'll do it > > again, there simply is nothing that can simplify administration like NDS > > or ZENworks. > > > > I'll give you an example. I just set up my Gentoo box. Getting ACL > > support installed was simple. I enabled it in the kernel. Compiled, > > and now I'm done. > > > > Alternately, I have a RH7.0 box in Ontario. I'd like to install ACL > > support for it too, but I can't find a 2.4.19 Kernel for RH 7.0, and I > > can't find ACL patches for anything earlier. (Could be 2.4.18,). > > Meanwhile, my list-lurking co-worker is currently installing RH 8.0. > > After installing RH 8, She downloaded kernel patches, and applied them. > > She is now recompiling the kernel, and getting it running. > > > > So, > > Both required a kernel compile. > > Only the Binary distro required patches. > > Once installed, the Binary distro didn't include tools for using EA and > > ACL FS support (holy acronyms, batman) Source did. > > An older install for RH doesn't allow these features at all, whereas a > > same age version of source based distro would have. > > Well, I can install these features on the older version of RH, but only > > by making it non-Red Hat in several places. > > When RH8 does finish installing, Samba RPMs will not include ACL > > support, so she'll need to DL and install that as well. > > > > So what we found is that source-based (I won't push Gentoo, there are > > others (happy?)) offers more flexibility and more features than binary > > based. Further, because the Binary system now uses an un-official > > kernel, with un-official FS utilities, I would always worry that up2date > > will at some point screw over the whole file system's permissions. > > > > Overall, both systems have been a ugly to install. > > Gentoo used devfs, and Compaq's driver wasn't fully compliant, in the > > end, I used the onboard RAID controller for the boot device, I have not > > followed up to see if the driver was fixed, frankly, I don't care. I > > won't need a 64bit I/O channel to the (unmounted) /boot partition.. > > The RH box has been a PITA for her to get running with ACL FS support. > > When it does eventually get going, every other aspect of RH will assume > > that box is a normal RH install. Since it isn't, that will mean that > > for the life of this box, there will be concerns about having files > > overwritten that RH thinks are OEM, but which are not. > > > > The Binary distro will clearly be uglier to administrate going forward. > > > > Kev. > > > > >
