There must be a lesson in here for us all..
Steve Holdoway wrote:
RedHat is pretty long in the tooth now... although the CentOS offerings of
RHEL are fine. However, if you're using apt to install, it may be a better
idea to use a debian-based distro.
I'm struggling with the logic of the particular situation Ant faced
getting started with midi support.
How is it http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ are providing
an apt kernel install system for RedHat? Has that come from a
half-informed approach to Linux, or do they set out to break ('modify')
the O/S intentionally?
From what I've learned in just a few years, adding apt would be a
pretty risky way to deal with an rpm-built system, because the original
package log will thereafter be compromised. Am I correct in likening
this kernel update method to installing a log-burner in your house by
using a bulldozer? Steve has pointed to where apt is already used, and
safer, but ccrma's kernel is for RH/Fedora only.
Ah.., http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net says "Apt4rpm.. Analyzes the rpm
packages in the rpm repository and creates a unified rpm package name.
This mechanism uses caching to speed up the creation of subsequent
created apt, yum or metadata repositories. The rpm name, version and
architecture are stored seperately in the cache. This makes it possible
to easily search for 1 particular rpm throughout the whole apt
repository." ..So that means it's a permanent upgrade to the RedHat
packaging system, which it breaks? Empowering for geeks but scary for
newbies, who lose the ability to point, click & install software
consistently from rpm icons thereafter.
I am happy to stand corrected. But until then I will share my
rudimentary gleaning for all those seeking to follow the snow-swept
mountain pass thru to Linuxville:
New User Rule #1:
For extended useability of your Linux platform, maintain the integrity
of your chosen distribution[2]'s packaging subsystem _at all costs_.
2. The packaging subsystem you must stick with therefore has high
priority in making your choice of distro, alongside range of software
available for it, and speedy availability of the latest upgrades, etc.
[The last two aspects are not important for my pedestrian computing
needs, whereas system stability is, on top of ease of software addition
& update. - Just so people know how I've reached my post-newbie distro
choice (Ubuntu).]
To conclude, Lance has echoed Robert in misattributing Slashdot talk to
me (by stripping the quote marks), and confusing the packaging system
choice with narrowness about distros. This explains why, despite wanting
to disagree, Lance has recommended some apt-based distros, as do I (for
non-experts).
</pedantry></vocalmode>
hth,
Rik
