On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:07:01 +1300 Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote: > > >> On Friday 10 October 2008, Roy Britten wrote: > >>> broken links and rather a lot of unnecessary cruft. > > > > sounds like CentOS in a nutshell. > > > > </flamebait> > > The amount of time before re-installing/swapping with debian is exactly > proportional to the amount of frustration you will get from it. yum is > no substitute for apt*, package dependencies on files were always a bad > idea and messing about with an old rpm based distro is more than merely > annoying. > > There, _THAT_ is flamebait. > > Rex Let's be honest. debian screws up, redhat screws up, suse screws up, mandrake screws up. A few of them try the Winscale solution ( change their name in the hope that people forget (: ). At some point in time, every major distro has cocked up their package management. I reckon personal bias comes from which distro was working properly when you started seriously using linux. (as a sys admin) I really can't see much difference between dpkg/rpm/the others which I forget. suse tries to limit the download volumes, and that's the biggest difference I see. I've got debian servers with uptimes measured in years ( well, except for the single reboot when they moved data centres about a year ago ), and I've got CentOS servers in the same category. Does it *really* make that much of a difference??? I mean practically. They all provide you with a linux platform for you to play on ( or, if you're that way inclined, to be paid to play on... I didn't say that out load did I? ). I see the use of a KDE or Gnome gui as being a far bigger difference. Just my $0.02 - which is worth a lot less now than it was on Monday, Steve -- Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
