According to Ray Olszewski: While burning my CPU.
>
>
> The question below, and the answers it received, reminded me of the above.
> With Linux distributions, "similar" versus "different" is somewhat in the
> eye of the beholder.
Yep, i deleted the above, just to make it more confusing, yes its easy to
see is'nt it,! Huuh.?.
>
> As regards Slackware and Red Hat, they do share many similarities (as do
> Debian, S.u.S.E. ... really, all major Linux distributions). Both provide
> the same basic kernel, the same (GNU and other) packages, similar X11
> implementations, and support for the same general set of hardware. So the
> command-line apps, the programming languages, the X servers and apps, and
> kernel modules will vary only slightly, and much of this variation will
> result from one having issued a new release more recently than the other.
>
> That said, there are important differences too. The main ones I know are:
>
> -- Red Hat uses .rpm packages, while Slackware provides its
> packages as gzip'd tar files.
What?, so and if they are different!, you can "always" use "any" xxx.tar.gz
file in "any" distribution. Thats a *nix command.
Just because a person has installed Redhat that does not mean he/she, "has"
to use a .rpm file to install a program. On this list we see all to many
questions about .rpms, it seems to me that folks dont know that a "simple"
xxx.tar.gz file will also install on a redhat debian or even a SUSE system.
> -- each has a different setup system. Aside from a slew of
> technical differences, Slackware requires a bit more
> hands-on work during setup; it figures out less for
> you than Red Hat does.
When one has a little experiance in configuring a system, then no setup
programs are nessassary. A little reading beforehand will help a "lot"
afterhand. But yes, some distro's do more than others at "first sight" but
after looking "just how" they do it, reading the manual and configuring the
system yourself is far beter than all the hassel which comes from letting
distro's do the dirty work for you.
A fact, 50% of slackware users do not even know what "pkgtool" is, let
alone "setup".
> -- they use different approaches to system initialization files
> (the files in the rc.d directory). The differences can be
> quite confusing when moving from one to the other.
That i agree with 100%.
However, now that i have gotten use to Redhat and sysv-init files i can say
that Redhat (or SysV-init files) have the upper hand as compeard to
slickware.
> -- they use different "getty" programs. (This is the program that
> watches for a login attempt on a device.) Slackware
> still uses agetty; Red Hat offers both mgetty and
> getty_ps (I think).
That the user can change if required.
> -- the shared libraries they provide can vary too, and this
> is important when adding in packages not included with
> the distribution. (Many questions on this list are about
> mismatches between apps and shared libraries.)
That is very true, and is realy a pain in the butt.
> -- one of the disks in the Red Hat set contains packages not
> distributed under GPL or an equivalent. These packages
> are not included with Slackware. I don't know if the
> Slackware "contrib" sections and the sunsite/mit archives
> mirrored on the CDs include apps not on the Red Hat
> disk set.
I belive we are talking about "contribution programs" under slackware they
are under the contrib directory, on the cd's as well as on mirror FTP sites.
>
> I use Slackware myself, and while it is a bit rougher around the edges than
> Red Hat, the only real problem I've had with it is its tendency to mess up
> swap setup. I always have to fix this by hand after doing a new install. I
> understand that RH has its problems too, though, so the choice between them
> isn't clear cut to my eye.
No sorry i cant agree about "rought around the edges", slackware is more
refined than other distributions, slackware contributors choose to keep
slackware like it was/is, plain and simple as compared to "unix" itself,
more like KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
That of course is my opinion which possably will not go down all to well
with others. Belive me, flames here go to /dev/null.
I say, try both slackware and Redhat, then try SUSE, which i am trying at
the minute, and belive me, suse is very nice, not only because the folks
there are trying to give a good impression by helping folks who mail
problems to them, but they support X more than other distro's do, or so
it seems to me.
As you see i experiment with a lot of distro's, my comments could be
considered 'baias' by some, however my words originate from experiance,
and in turn allow me to comment the way i do, (or at least i hope that is
the case)..
To conclude, its the first distro one installs which makes the impression,
and its your own impressions which inspire "you" to use *nix.
>
> At 12:54 PM 12/28/98 -0800, Charles Buchanan wrote:
> >Since a couple of people have mentioned/suggested that I try Slakware
> >instead Red Hat, I have ordered Slakware and it should be here in a few days
> >or so. My question is, Is there a huge difference in commands for the
> >different flavors of linux?
> [deleted]
>
> ------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
> Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
> 762 Garland Drive
> Palo Alto, CA 94303-3603
> 650.321.3561 voice 650.322.1209 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Regards Richard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happy New Year, and may all your troubles be small (ones).
