I just deployed Mandrake 7.1 with Reiser FS on 2 servers
(replacing the previous Mandrake 6.1s) I did it just to get
ReiserFS. I'll tell you in the future if it's really
stable.
Quirks I've seen?
- squid doesn't work when I just get the .conf file from
an old redhat. (they must have changed something.)
- you can screw up printing in some installs. (I just
reinstall)
- you can't just insert 'startx' in the .bash_profile to
automatically start x (it doesn't run) if you run at
mode 3.
------- Original Copy -------
>Subject: Re: [plug] rieserfs vs IBM's JFS
>Date: 07/22/2000 4:24 AM
>From: "Ian C.Sison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> And for Ian (this is slightly off-thread-topic) and other
Mandrake
>> "fanatics": I'm slowly (hehehe) being convinced to go
Mandrake because
>> they seem to be more proactive when it comes to releasing
useable RPMs of
>> the latest versions of software. Is this mild observation
of mine valid?
>> Aside from having the "mdk" RPMs, and all those "goodies"
that you want to
>> put in, what makes Mandrake different from RedHat? I
don't want a sales
>> pitch.
>
>Well you won't get one. \8) I'm not a fanatic, The right
tool for the job. In
>the sense that for pure server use, i still opt for redhat
6.2. I use mandrake:
>
>1. for deploying to newbie clients because
> a. the windows 98 desktop KDE theme makes it less
"alien" to look at
> b. reiserfs means less tech support calls due to
"accidentally pulling the
> plug.
>2. for my personal desktop use. It more pretty,
functional, polished than
>redhat will ever be.
>
>As for the RPMS/SRPMS, yes you're correct that Mandrake has
a "more active"
>packaging team, and it shows by the size of their distro ->
1 650MB CD and 1
>300MB extension CD. That's not even including their
'contrib-RPMS' in their
>ftp mirrors. Their default kernel is heavily patched also,
in the sense that i
>won't even think of duplicating their effort at providing
additional
>functionality to the stock kernel. But you can use these
SRPMs for redhat as
>well, as they are still very much compatible with each
other. More than SuSE
>or Caldera RPMs are.
>
>I want to know how much change (denoted by y as a function
of ...
>> argh ... too much Math 52 [first Calculus of the series
in UP Manila] for
>> me! Hahaha!) I'll be in for. I'm planning an upgrade of
the server in the
>> office, and among the many changes (addition of new hard
drive,
>> repartitioning, use of new filesystem, implementation of
md RAID1) I think
>> I want to move to Mandrake. What do you people think? Any
tips for this
>> potential RedHat convertee?
>
>If you won't be doing Reiser or X or a desktop, forget it.
It will just eat up
>resources. If you'll be doing Reiser, do try to install it
without X. I
>haven't yet tried to strip down MDK without X, but maybe it
will work.
>
>> Also, I've never been comfortable with letting
>> RedHat do the upgrading of an older release on its own. I
find that it
>> meddles too much, so I prefer to do the updating of the
packages
>> one-by-one. Too much work if the upgrade isn't all that
worthwhile. How
>> are things with Mandrake auto-updates from one release to
the next
>> (assuming not too significant a delta between releases,
ie: one stable
>> release to the next stable release, exclusive of all
those pre's and
>> alpha's in between)?
>
>Same thing here. For peace of mind, i back up the config
file first, just in
>case the install script in the RPM decides to hose the one
i have configured.
>
>
>-
>Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at
http://plug.linux.org.ph
>To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
