On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, David Mandel wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Cannibul_VI wrote:
>
> > Ok, so I have used Redhat since 5.0, and I know this makes me a
> > newbie. And I have tried Mandrake 7....
> > Is there a better Linux distro?
> >
>
> All the major Linux distributions are quality distributions.
> I don't think one can really rank them from worst to best without
> considering your particular applications. One distribution is
> better for some users and another one is for other users.
>
> In general, I like:
At the risk of starting a distro war (Which I have no desire to do)..
> Debian for certain clients. It is big, but philosophically pure.
> Thus, I prefer it for LinuxFund.org, PLUG,
> ltplus.org, and other OpenSource organizations.
> I also recommend Debian to hackers and other
> philosophically pure power users.
> It can be a pain to install. On the other hand,
> Debian doesn't hide configuration files with
> "user friendly" tools, so Debian system
> administrators know what files are getting changed.
> On the down side, it uses .debs instead of .rpms
> for package management. Altho .debs work fine,
> they aren't as universially accepted .rpms.
> However, this is only a minor inconvenence.
Granted, .debs are less common, but that stems directly from them being
more work to create. However, Debian's package management quite simply
puts RPM to shame. The consistency, flexibility, and power you get with
this system is simply unparalleled in Linux distros.
On a second note, I've gotten into the habit of using Debian almost
exclusively on servers. Thanks in part to the aforementioned powerful
package management, keeping a system current with apt is literally two
commands. update, and upgrade. Also, Debian's base system is hundreds of
MB smaller than most because Debian packages are divided up into the
smallest possible size, assuring you install only what you want, and
nothing more.
> RedHat for most clients. It has sort of become the accepted professional
> standard for Linux in the USA.
> (SuSE plays this role in Europe and TurboLinux plays
> this role in East Asia.) RedHat uses linuxconf
> for system administration. A lot of people like
> linuxconf. Personally, I find it confusing.
> (It reminds me of regedit in Windows.)
Having never used Mandrake, but not having any compelling reason to try
it, I tend to suggest RedHat to any Linux newbie that asks me. The
installer is blindingly simple, and it leaves you with a fairly decent
setup. I also tend to use RedHat for my personal workstation (But Debian
for my home DSL router ;) ) because I like to keep experienced in both
systems. Not much reason beyond that. :)
> Corel or Caldera for certain end-users
> Corel is cool. It is polished, very easy to
> install (when things work), and easy to use.
> However, it is a desktop distribution without the
> security needed for servers. It also lacks the
> tools hackers want (compilers, emacs, etc.)
Corel isn't just not suited for servers, it is a security disaster. I
pity any user that puts a Corel Linux system directly on the Internet. It
only recently came to my attention, but I've recently become quite
digusted with what Corel did to Debian. The polished, easy to use look
may be nice, but the custom tools and security 'features' they've added
quite literally strike fear in my heart.
Matt
