Re: debian vs redhat
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:32 -0500, Kent West wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote: Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while using Sid, it just dies. :) Your /etc/rununplugged.rc file must be hosed. My Sid laptop does fine when I unplug it. Can you email me your copy? I figure that my system will be a heck of a lot quieter if it's unplugged. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA 'He insulted me, he cheated me, he beat me, he robbed me' -- those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace. Buddha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 22:37 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote: solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged ^ computer any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state, otherwise your config is not properly configured but, obviously, if its unplugged, you will not get any network-based services ( ntp, updates, etc ) Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while using Sid, it just dies. :) Unplugged from the power socket. Emoticon would give it away, I thought. Lame attempt at humor. Never mind. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version. Colonel Oliver North -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat -fair
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 However, Woody (which was released analogous to RH9) was just as rock solid stable as Sarge. I agree completely that we must compare relatively equal systems, but doing so does not change the outcome: Debian Stable lives up to its name. I was using RH in 2000-2001, and couldn't figure out why the company stayed with it. I put Debian on my own system, and wow-ed them with dselect and apt. Oh well, Management was inflexible. And, that company is long gone. Maybe there's a connection there Curt- On Thursday 06 April 2006 05:10, Alvin Oga wrote: On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released 06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite significant in terms of hardware support and general application stability. bingo ... some folks like to compare oranges to dogs ... vs a fair comparison of like systems from the same era .. 2 yrs is way way too long ... it'd be like comparing p4-1G vs p4-3G w/ hyperthread or something similar and yet vastly different c ya alvin - -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRDUayC9Y35yItIgBAQJgkQf+JqBNIzwKEmpVm8iZCPLzd08zAVMOMMgt FMgiqYut1SAVIJLuek0tx6XYL2q1k1mpmk7kn8WjEhprYrH2IBRP9p/MhyYoaId1 I/a5im+4coBcVj0GKlNokbeWT7XnWm23HfGYi32F7ONcdrQ3B5pzXaXtjxEC2bsz xi2BbgXHCe301tCV/1mYgc6v6iaCp3MVH2pEHZyGw5Kr2NLxk2o+EngCRfNHxy/c MDKGHfW+6ysQ6NlEur9UmlQOimyLas2RFmwMwSPAnZTBsqyQGs9kzX43WrLDmO4Q b50evbj+FIIu0yBYl9xUISZBFKXcoqC/lvpxxKYA57FSkBfpne2mXg== =lCrh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote: Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and office, to debian in the next few months. Thanks! Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged ^ computer Hmmm I'll try it Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while using Sid, it just dies. :) Ha! My Sarge keeps running! Due to my Back-UPS LS 500 with apcupsd 3.13.2 (22 February 2006) no doubt ;-) H -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian vs redhat
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and office, to debian in the next few months. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
Really great news. I am also shifted here like you :)On 4/6/06, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and havemainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versionshave sort of bothered me.So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed.I plan on migrating all my servers, home andoffice, to debian in the next few months.Thanks!--To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu)Home page: http://lavluda.tripod.comBlog: http://lavluda.blogspot.comYahoo!! ID: lavluda MSN ID: lavluda Skype : lavluda
Re: debian vs redhat
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote: Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and office, to debian in the next few months. Thanks! Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer Hmmm I'll try it -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 23:03, charles norwood wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote: mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. Snip Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer There were three things that caused me to take the Debian plunge in about 1998/1999. 1. RedHat's quality control dropped off, and their releases were very shoddy. [1] I know people complain about Debian's slow release cycle, but this is offset by having three releases online at all times. 2. apt was just coming online, and thus the installs got a little easier than using dselect. And upgrades were a dream. 3. RPM hell. 'Nuff said. I've been a happy Debian user ever since. [1] RH's QC isn't a far sight better, even today. I have to use CentOS 4 (RHEL 4, community compiled) at work, and their released kernel, 2.6.9-22.EL, shipped with reiserfs broken. To the point that the kernel wouldn't compile. When I asked on the forums, they suggested I revert to 2.6.9-11.EL. Management decided at that point that we could live without ReiserFS... -- --Brad Bradley M. Alexander | IA Analyst, SysAdmin, Security Engineer| storm [at] tux.org Debian/GNU Linux Developer | storm [at] debian.org Key fingerprints: DSA 0x54434E65: 37F6 BCA6 621D 920C E02E E3C8 73B2 C019 5443 4E65 RSA 0xC3BCBA91: 3F 0E 26 C1 90 14 AD 0A C8 9C F0 93 75 A0 01 34 Smith Wesson: The original point and click interface. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
charles norwood wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote: Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and office, to debian in the next few months. Thanks! Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer Hmmm I'll try it To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released 06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite significant in terms of hardware support and general application stability. Of course, I am still a Debianista to the core, but I had the misfortune of admining a lab full of RH9 machines until I could get them migrated to Debian. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: debian vs redhat
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote: Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time, and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and office, to debian in the next few months. Thanks! Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged ^ computer Hmmm I'll try it Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while using Sid, it just dies. :) -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA A peace that depends on fear is nothing but a suppressed war. Henry Van Dyke -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote: Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while using Sid, it just dies. :) Your /etc/rununplugged.rc file must be hosed. My Sid laptop does fine when I unplug it. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote: solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged ^ computer any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state, otherwise your config is not properly configured but, obviously, if its unplugged, you will not get any network-based services ( ntp, updates, etc ) c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian vs redhat -fair
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released 06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite significant in terms of hardware support and general application stability. bingo ... some folks like to compare oranges to dogs ... vs a fair comparison of like systems from the same era .. 2 yrs is way way too long ... it'd be like comparing p4-1G vs p4-3G w/ hyperthread or something similar and yet vastly different c ya alvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reverse dns lookup problem on ssh debian vs redhat
Hi! I recently switched to debian Sarge (and sid) for all of my work (YAY I LOVE IT!). Now, until now, I had been using redhat 7.3 for my servers. I have many redhat 7.3 servers, and now, I have installed 2 debian sarge servers (i know it is not yet released, but I have tested it for months and am perfectly happy). Now I notice a problem with reverse DNS that I did not have with Redhat 7.3. I am curious to understand the differences. Although it is installed, I never properly configured bind9 on these machines. Similarly the redhat 7.3 machines didnt even have bind installed at all. I have /etc/resolv.conf set up with the 2 nameservers provided by my ISP. If my local (192.168.99.X) network is connected to the internet, and can access the nameservers provided by my ISP, (151.202.0.84 say), then if I try to ssh into one of my Debian Sarge machines, I get an immediate response when I ssh 192.168.99.76 into one of my machines on my private network. However, if my private network is disconnected from the main internet and thus my Debian machines are not connected to the internet, and can't contact my ISP's nameservers, then I get a 20 second delay while we timeout ( that is 2 nameservers, 2 attempts per nameserver and 5 second timeout). I can easily shortcircuit this timeout by putting a line options timeout:0 attempts:0 into the /etc/resolv.conf file. I can similarly shortcircuit this timeout by actually putting the ip address that I am ssh'ing from into /etc/hosts so that no reverse dns takes place. I realize that I should actually set up the machine itself to provide dns service itself, and not rely upon the nameservers provided by my ISP (say by configuring bind9 and the correct local domain reverse dns lookup service or else installing djbdns ). However, I am puzzled. As I have been using redhat 7.3 for servers on a private network for many years, without using bind (8 or 9), and I have just been doing ssh 192.168.99.75 and getting immediate access even though there was no nameserver at all listed in /etc/resolv.conf on the redhat machines. Ie on the redhat machines /etc/resolv.conf simply consisted of the single line search localhost. If I change the /etc/resolv.conf on the debian box to the same search localhost line, I get a 10 second timeout (not 20 second where there are two not reachable nameservers). Any idea what is the difference in the setup here??? What did they do in redhat to disable or shortcircuit the reverse dns lookup? It doesn't look like redhat set up a caching reverse dns server, because bind isn't installed on my redhat 7.3 machines. This is important for other network services besides ssh. Thanks a million! Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reverse dns lookup problem on ssh debian vs redhat
google ssh reverse dns debian turned up this as the first hit: http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2002/03/msg00081.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian vs RedHat
Hola Caya, Simplemente decirte si te refieres a mi comentario que tienes razón en parte, yo con la redhat 7.1 estoy entusiasmado, si lees la última revista de PCworld, se hace una comparativa de Versiones de LINUX, a Suse la ponen como la primera con un 8, Debian es el segundo y pierde el primer puesto por la sencillez de instalación del primero. Red Hat no está muy bien valorada y exponen que el principal problema es que sacan nuevas versiones demasiado rápido y ya no demasiado estables. Hombre, IDG a veces falla, pero a mi en general me gustan sus comparativas. Mi versión 8.0 de Red Hat va fatal y lo de la actualización a través de internet que trae, no termina completamente 2 veces seguidas. Os recomiendo que espereis un poco hasta que digan algo (incluso se me bloquea el terminal en las KDE), pero los mejores pueden cometer errores... Sigo diciendo que el problema no es linux, es Microsoft y el antimonopolio, ahora abren su código, pero sólo a los gobiernos, ¡que buen rollo!. Aún así hay que reconocer que han acercado al usuarios a los ordenadores personales, ¡al cesar lo que es del cesar! Un saludo. _ Únete al mayor servicio mundial de correo electrónico: http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Debian vs Redhat : le dbat ?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 04:04:24PM +0100, Alain BACH wrote: * Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.19-686-smp ou apt-get install kernel-image-2.2.19-smp ou utilise le frontend de ton choix pour ce faire. Ou compiles un nouveau kernel, optimisé pour ta machine très exactement. Je pense quil y a sous Linux des solutions pour gérer (sur le portable) différents emplacements géographiques, solutions PAYANTES dans le monde Microc. Je ne comprends pas ce que tu veux. Tu veux changer les réglages ethernet selon l'endroit où tu es? Tu veux changer la timezone de ta machine selon l'endroit où tu es? Tu veux changer de locale selon l'endroit où tu es? timezone = fuseau horaire locale = spécfications de localisation telles que format de date et d'heure, ordre de tri des caractères, langue des messages. Je terminerais en lançant une invitation. Euh... Aix, c'est dans le sud-est, non? Alors, je suis trop loin. Désolé. -- Lionel
Re: Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
* Alain BACH [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-15 16:04] : Bonjour à tous, [...] * Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. Jaimerais pouvoir utiliser ma carte Xircom sur mon portable. Jaimerais avoir, sur l ensemble de mes machines, la même distribution. Je pense quil y a sous Linux des solutions pour gérer (sur le portable) différents emplacements géographiques, solutions PAYANTES dans le monde Microc. Ma grande ignorance me force à constater que (à lexception de la dernière option), jai réussi à faire ça avec RH mais pas Débian. C'est-à-dire, définir une configuration réseau selon l'environnement ? Dans ce cas, le paquet whereami semble correspondre à ce que tu veux faire (je ne l'ai pas testé, mais plusieurs personnes sur la liste debian-laptop semblent l'utiliser sans problème). Fred
Rép. : Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
Bonsoir, Pour faire simple et cours , Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, Suse,Connectiva,..sont des distributions qui reposent sur un noyaui Linux Chaque distribution possède quelque spécificité mais cela reste du Linux. Concernant Debian, il s'agit d'une distrution Linux mais aussi un état d'esprit autour du logiciel libre . Je pense que pour réussir à installer Linux,il faut etre avant tout modeste,c'est pour cette raison que je vous recommande d'installer et utiliser Suse ou Redhat ou Mandrake puis d'installer Debian. A titre d'information,je vais mettre en oeuvre bénévolement un serveur Debian GNU/Linux dans une école primaire de Grigny ayant peu de moyens. Je vous souhaite beaucoup de courage. Cordialement. Alex
Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
Bonjour à tous, Je vois que mes « conclusions » dhier ont largement contribuées à lancer le débat sur le choix de mune ou lautre distributions de Linux. Avant daller plus loin, permettez moi de placer mon décor personnel. Jai ici deux machines : - La première est un portable Compaq Armada 1750, avec 64Mo de RAM, son petit disque dur de 6Go et sa carte Xircom mixte réseau Ethernet 10/100 Modem 56k -La seconde est à lopposé : Gateway 2000 bipro PIII/450, 256Mo RAM, 2 disques durs IDE de 7Go en Maître et esclave du premier canal IDE, un lecteur DVD branché en Maître due second canal IDE , trois disques durs SCSI de 9Go (ID SCSI 0,1,2) chacun connectés à lun des deux canaux dune carte Adaptec 7890 (deux canaux SCSI), un graveur de CD SCSI (ID SCSI 3) Teac CD55-R, un lecteur de bande Seagate STT2N en ID SCSI 6, une carte graphique Salvage S4, une carte réseau Intel Express 10/100 et une seconde carte réseau Dlink (basique). Ma connexion Internet ? via une troisième machine en Windows 2000 car accès Internet AOL modem 56K (illimité). Bien entendu, les trois machines sont en réseau Ethernet à 100Mbs Personnellement, je suis informaticien, autodidacte, et je suis passé au fil de ma (longue) carrière de NetWare 2.0a à NetWare 5, de Windows 286 à Windows 2000 (jai réussi à échapper à XP !). Jai aujourdhui beaucoup de temps libre puisquen inter contrat. Désireux de me mettre à Linux, jai pris contact avec les gens de lAxul (que je salue au passage), Association Aixoise des Utilisateurs du Libre. Lors dune des soirées de cette association, je suis venu avec mon bipro. N y connaissant rien, jai laissé faire. Le choix sest porté sur la Debian. Je ne remet en aucune manière ce choix en question, ni les compétences évidentes des personnes que jai rencontrées. Il y a encore 3 mois, jétais tout Windaube (NT et 2000). Je pense que l avenir est à Linux (ou en tout cas au libre) mais je my intéresse aussi et surtout par curiosité personnelle. Jai lu avec attention toutes vos réponses. * Ma notion de léternité a fait sourire. Jen ris moi même, et de bon cur. Il est vrai quà mes débuts, sous NetWare 2.0a, il mavait fallu 6 mois pour découvrir, seul la commande SYSCON, à la base du système. Que voulez-vous, le monde saccélère * Unix nest pas fait pour moi, au moins en tant quadministrateur. Pourquoi pas, après tout. Je ne pense par contre pas que ce soit plus dure à emmagasiner que du (vieux) NetWare ou de lAS/400 ou alors c'est que mes neurones ont pris un sacré coup de vieux en quinze ans. 2 * Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. Jaimerais pouvoir utiliser ma carte Xircom sur mon portable. Jaimerais avoir, sur l ensemble de mes machines, la même distribution. Je pense quil y a sous Linux des solutions pour gérer (sur le portable) différents emplacements géographiques, solutions PAYANTES dans le monde Microc. Ma grande ignorance me force à constater que (à lexception de la dernière option), jai réussi à faire ça avec RH mais pas Débian. * Que Débian soit à la fois Ferrari et Land Rover, je nen doute absolument pas. Ce serait remettre en cause les compétences et le dévouement de mes amis aixois de lAxul, ce que je ne ferais JAMAIS. Certains dentre eux me reconnaîtrons aisément, au vu du descriptif de ma machine (nest ce pas Benji ?). * bien sûr, tout OS nouveau demande un investissement personnel en terme de temps et de moyens. Bien sûr, Linux est très développé dans le domaine des Mailing lists et des news groups. Bien sûr, je me suis acheté la sixième édition du bouquin sur Linux aux éditions Campus, Mais là je cale. Je terminerais en lançant une invitation . Ma configuration nest pas à vrai dire portable (dans sa globalité) et je ne déplacerais plus le bipro comme je lai déjà fait. Le premier pas pour pouvoir dialoguer sur un sujet est de lavoir installé proprement. Jai en ce moment du temps disponible et je voudrais du fond du cur passer en Débian (et je suis plus que sincère). Y aurait-il une âme charitable (pour des raisons géographiques évidentes, je pense avant tout aux gens de lAxul) qui puisse maccorder ne serait-ce qu une demie journée, chez moi, pour monter Débian proprement sur ces deux foutues bestioles ? Je gère lintendance gastronomique, et ce sera pas du hamburger ! Amicalement. Alain
Re: Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
j'aime bien ton mail ( c'est le seul que j'ai lu sur le sujet ). Je pense que tu n'auras aucunes difficulté à installé debian sur ta machine. En tout cas, tu peux essayé tout seul ( tu dis que tu as du temps libre ) car c'est en forgeant qu'on devient forgeron ! N'hésite pas à demander de l'aide sur la ML ( il y a aura tjs qq1 qui se fera le plaisir de t'aider ). mais ne te décourage pas pour autant. Voila, bon courage et pour finir, je dirai que linux-debian possède mille et un trésors, une fois qu'on y accède, on est comblé ! @+ kamel At 16:04 15/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: Bonjour à tous, Je vois que mes « conclusions » dhier ont largement contribuées à lancer le débat sur le choix de mune ou lautre distributions de Linux. Avant daller plus loin, permettez moi de placer mon décor personnel. Jai ici deux machines : - La première est un portable Compaq Armada 1750, avec 64Mo de RAM, son petit disque dur de 6Go et sa carte Xircom mixte réseau Ethernet 10/100 Modem 56k -La seconde est à lopposé : Gateway 2000 bipro PIII/450, 256Mo RAM, 2 disques durs IDE de 7Go en Maître et esclave du premier canal IDE, un lecteur DVD branché en Maître due second canal IDE , trois disques durs SCSI de 9Go (ID SCSI 0,1,2) chacun connectés à lun des deux canaux dune carte Adaptec 7890 (deux canaux SCSI), un graveur de CD SCSI (ID SCSI 3) Teac CD55-R, un lecteur de bande Seagate STT2N en ID SCSI 6, une carte graphique Salvage S4, une carte réseau Intel Express 10/100 et une seconde carte réseau Dlink (basique). Ma connexion Internet ? via une troisième machine en Windows 2000 car accès Internet AOL modem 56K (illimité). Bien entendu, les trois machines sont en réseau Ethernet à 100Mbs Personnellement, je suis informaticien, autodidacte, et je suis passé au fil de ma (longue) carrière de NetWare 2.0a à NetWare 5, de Windows 286 à Windows 2000 (jai réussi à échapper à XP !). Jai aujourdhui beaucoup de temps libre puisquen inter contrat. Désireux de me mettre à Linux, jai pris contact avec les gens de lAxul (que je salue au passage), Association Aixoise des Utilisateurs du Libre. Lors dune des soirées de cette association, je suis venu avec mon bipro. N y connaissant rien, jai laissé faire. Le choix sest porté sur la Debian. Je ne remet en aucune manière ce choix en question, ni les compétences évidentes des personnes que jai rencontrées. Il y a encore 3 mois, jétais tout Windaube (NT et 2000). Je pense que l avenir est à Linux (ou en tout cas au libre) mais je my intéresse aussi et surtout par curiosité personnelle. Jai lu avec attention toutes vos réponses. * Ma notion de léternité a fait sourire. Jen ris moi même, et de bon cur. Il est vrai quà mes débuts, sous NetWare 2.0a, il mavait fallu 6 mois pour découvrir, seul la commande SYSCON, à la base du système. Que voulez-vous, le monde saccélère * Unix nest pas fait pour moi, au moins en tant quadministrateur. Pourquoi pas, après tout. Je ne pense par contre pas que ce soit plus dure à emmagasiner que du (vieux) NetWare ou de lAS/400 ou alors c'est que mes neurones ont pris un sacré coup de vieux en quinze ans. 2 * Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. Jaimerais pouvoir utiliser ma carte Xircom sur mon portable. Jaimerais avoir, sur l ensemble de mes machines, la même distribution. Je pense quil y a sous Linux des solutions pour gérer (sur le portable) différents emplacements géographiques, solutions PAYANTES dans le monde Microc. Ma grande ignorance me force à constater que (à lexception de la dernière option), jai réussi à faire ça avec RH mais pas Débian. * Que Débian soit à la fois Ferrari et Land Rover, je nen doute absolument pas. Ce serait remettre en cause les compétences et le dévouement de mes amis aixois de lAxul, ce que je ne ferais JAMAIS. Certains dentre eux me reconnaîtrons aisément, au vu du descriptif de ma machine (nest ce pas Benji ?). * bien sûr, tout OS nouveau demande un investissement personnel en terme de temps et de moyens. Bien sûr, Linux est très développé dans le domaine des Mailing lists et des news groups. Bien sûr, je me suis acheté la sixième édition du bouquin sur Linux aux éditions Campus, Mais là je cale. Je terminerais en lançant une invitation . Ma configuration nest pas à vrai dire portable (dans sa globalité) et je ne déplacerais plus le bipro comme je lai déjà fait. Le premier pas pour pouvoir dialoguer sur un sujet est de lavoir installé proprement. Jai en ce moment du temps disponible et je voudrais du fond du cur passer en Débian (et je suis plus que sincère). Y aurait-il une âme charitable (pour des raisons géographiques évidentes, je pense avant tout aux gens de lAxul) qui puisse maccorder ne serait-ce qu une demie journée, chez moi, pour monter Débian proprement sur ces deux foutues bestioles ? Je gère lintendance gastronomique, et ce sera pas du
RE: Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
salut je le ferais bien mais je suis sur toulouse c'est vrai qu'il te faudrais un coup de main pour debuter sur debian (qui na strictement rien a voir avec mdk ou redhat) deja commence par te retrousser les manches et soit tres volontaire pour te donner un example j'ais mis 6 semaines a essayer de faire fonctionner ma connexion adsl avant de comprendre tout le cheminement du truc donc un seul mot d'ordre ne desespere pas == phil -Message d'origine- De : Alain BACH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : vendredi 15 novembre 2002 16:04 À : debian-user-french@lists.debian.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Debian vs Redhat : le débat ? Bonjour à tous, Je vois que mes « conclusions » dhier ont largement contribuées à lancer le débat sur le choix de mune ou lautre distributions de Linux. Avant daller plus loin, permettez moi de placer mon décor personnel. Jai ici deux machines : - La première est un portable Compaq Armada 1750, avec 64Mo de RAM, son petit disque dur de 6Go et sa carte Xircom mixte réseau Ethernet 10/100 Modem 56k -La seconde est à lopposé : Gateway 2000 bipro PIII/450, 256Mo RAM, 2 disques durs IDE de 7Go en Maître et esclave du premier canal IDE, un lecteur DVD branché en Maître due second canal IDE , trois disques durs SCSI de 9Go (ID SCSI 0,1,2) chacun connectés à lun des deux canaux dune carte Adaptec 7890 (deux canaux SCSI), un graveur de CD SCSI (ID SCSI 3) Teac CD55-R, un lecteur de bande Seagate STT2N en ID SCSI 6, une carte graphique Salvage S4, une carte réseau Intel Express 10/100 et une seconde carte réseau Dlink (basique). Ma connexion Internet ? via une troisième machine en Windows 2000 car accès Internet AOL modem 56K (illimité). Bien entendu, les trois machines sont en réseau Ethernet à 100Mbs Personnellement, je suis informaticien, autodidacte, et je suis passé au fil de ma (longue) carrière de NetWare 2.0a à NetWare 5, de Windows 286 à Windows 2000 (jai réussi à échapper à XP !). Jai aujourdhui beaucoup de temps libre puisquen inter contrat. Désireux de me mettre à Linux, jai pris contact avec les gens de lAxul (que je salue au passage), Association Aixoise des Utilisateurs du Libre. Lors dune des soirées de cette association, je suis venu avec mon bipro. N y connaissant rien, jai laissé faire. Le choix sest porté sur la Debian. Je ne remet en aucune manière ce choix en question, ni les compétences évidentes des personnes que jai rencontrées. Il y a encore 3 mois, jétais tout Windaube (NT et 2000). Je pense que l avenir est à Linux (ou en tout cas au libre) mais je my intéresse aussi et surtout par curiosité personnelle. Jai lu avec attention toutes vos réponses. * Ma notion de léternité a fait sourire. Jen ris moi même, et de bon cur. Il est vrai quà mes débuts, sous NetWare 2.0a, il mavait fallu 6 mois pour découvrir, seul la commande SYSCON, à la base du système. Que voulez-vous, le monde saccélère * Unix nest pas fait pour moi, au moins en tant quadministrateur. Pourquoi pas, après tout. Je ne pense par contre pas que ce soit plus dure à emmagasiner que du (vieux) NetWare ou de lAS/400 ou alors c'est que mes neurones ont pris un sacré coup de vieux en quinze ans. 2 * Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. Jaimerais pouvoir utiliser ma carte Xircom sur mon portable. Jaimerais avoir, sur l ensemble de mes machines, la même distribution. Je pense quil y a sous Linux des solutions pour gérer (sur le portable) différents emplacements géographiques, solutions PAYANTES dans le monde Microc. Ma grande ignorance me force à constater que (à lexception de la dernière option), jai réussi à faire ça avec RH mais pas Débian. * Que Débian soit à la fois Ferrari et Land Rover, je nen doute absolument pas. Ce serait remettre en cause les compétences et le dévouement de mes amis aixois de lAxul, ce que je ne ferais JAMAIS. Certains dentre eux me reconnaîtrons aisément, au vu du descriptif de ma machine (nest ce pas Benji ?). * bien sûr, tout OS nouveau demande un investissement personnel en terme de temps et de moyens. Bien sûr, Linux est très développé dans le domaine des Mailing lists et des news groups. Bien sûr, je me suis acheté la sixième édition du bouquin sur Linux aux éditions Campus, Mais là je cale. Je terminerais en lançant une invitation . Ma configuration nest pas à vrai dire portable (dans sa globalité) et je ne déplacerais plus le bipro comme je lai déjà fait. Le premier pas pour pouvoir dialoguer sur un sujet est de lavoir installé proprement. Jai en ce moment du temps disponible et je voudrais du fond du cur passer en Débian (et je suis plus que sincère). Y aurait-il une âme charitable (pour des raisons géographiques évidentes, je pense avant tout aux gens de lAxul) qui puisse maccorder ne serait-ce qu une demie journée, chez moi, pour monter Débian proprement sur ces deux foutues
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Roderick Cummings declaimed: ...but I have a dozen or so 486's, IPX's, udb's chugging along Me too. Just because I can! And if I didn't keep the 486 up, what would I do with that perfectly good ISA+microchannel SCSI card? :-) PM -- Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.copvcia.com/
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
%% martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mfk also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]: ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s mfk no karsten, you messed the order up again! That's a quote from Star Trek IV, actually. -- --- Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] HASMAT--HA Software Mthds Tools Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional. --Mad Scientist --- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:58:41PM -0500, Paul Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: %% martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mfk also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]: ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s mfk no karsten, you messed the order up again! That's a quote from Star Trek IV, actually. Give the gentleman a cigar! -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpbo2dBNMxWr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:40:46PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, which would be
the one dictating this...
Doh!
Yes, LSB.
...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
--
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgphOwdH3mT2h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]: ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s no karsten, you messed the order up again! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] si vis pacem, para bellum pgpz5uxGGleZR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, which would be
the one dictating this...
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it may look like i'm just sitting here doing nothing.
but i'm really actively waiting
for all my problems to go away.
pgpLObr5Qry47.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:07:18AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Alec wrote: On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? That time, RPM wasn't good enough (in short, it sucked big time then Well, yes, after a fashion. Debs came before RPMs. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpt4JGO2IHEM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:26:41PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking, /etc/rc.d/* is the proper SysV way, but these days
even RedHat uses /etc/{init,rc?}.d
Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgp2YtVOSarW9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the SYSV/BSD is a valid point) Please feel free to add on, but lets keep the jokes to a minumum for now... Common to both: Integrated Package Management (rpm/deb) Alien can be used to convert RPM's to DEB and vice versa. Commercial Support from outside paid vendors Debian: Server Oriented No. Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for redhat but requires considerable time/effort to install] Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production) Publicly available bug archive for testing and searching System layout is SYSV like Solaris Both RH and Debian use a SysV init. The alternative a BSD init -- cf: OpenBSD, with a single system rc file. RedHat: Well Known Desktop Oriented No pre-installed install/update tool (apt) Dev and Test cycles are internal only or non-existant Bug tracking system is not available for searching System layout is BSD Wrong. The biggest differentiator between Debian and RedHat is that Debian is policy based. apt is just a system to implement policy. Functionally, dpkg and rpm are roughly equivalent. It's what they're _meant_ to do that affords the difference. I see a couple things in RPM that would be nice adds for deb, but overall, the concept of a deb (hey, it's just an 'ar' archive with embedded tarballs) is simple, robust, and versatile. IMO the project organization used by Debian also has much to speak for the quality and comprehensiveness of the distribution. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpqhws4w6Rqw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did. but in 7.0, redhat provided the /etc/init.d symlink, and
i believe that 7.2 had it completely switched. im not sure actually.
redhat *is* aware that they are the onlu ones, and that /etc/rc.d/init.d
is uncool.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it's as bad as you think, and they are out to get you.
pgp3wVjvxUQsx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:19:27PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did. but in 7.0, redhat provided the /etc/init.d symlink, and
i believe that 7.2 had it completely switched. im not sure actually.
redhat *is* aware that they are the onlu ones, and that /etc/rc.d/init.d
is uncool.
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
Mind you, when I try explaining this to my RH friends, there's generally
strong resistence to the concept that Dweebian might have got this one
right
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgpzpwbd4jpDq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
--On Saturday, January 12, 2002 13:03:27 -0800 Karsten M. Self
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
Mind you, when I try explaining this to my RH friends, there's generally
strong resistence to the concept that Dweebian might have got this one
right
That's certainly one thing I don't like about RH. RH users have this
windows mindset where RH has the marketshare so everything they do must be
the right way to do it.
The first time I used RH was around 3.03 or something. I know it was well
before 2.x kernels. I think the first time I used Linux was Slackware,
since I remember lots of floppies with Sets like A,B, etc. RH was later. I
also used some odd variant that was nice because it used loadlin and ran
off umsdos. It was an easy way to get into things. Caldera Network Desktop
was when I first decided that this Linux thing was worthwhile. :-) Then I
discovered Debian and I keep coming back to it. I started with buzz, so
it's been a while.
I have always had this feeling of this is the way it should be done when
using Debian. There's much less of the What the hell is this? Why did they
do that? Who decided to do this? feeling I get from working with some
other distros. :-)
SuSe would probably be my second choice for a distro since the developers
seem to have their sh*t together. But it's still RPM-based and I find that
annoying (although nice if you have to use commercial software).
I'm currently using Libranet and it seems pretty well done. It's basically
potato with a 2.4.3 kernel and Xfree 4.
pgpTSqkgCZU77.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
From: Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Subject: Re: Debian Vs RedHat Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:21:13 -0500 --On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the nice, cheap machines available now (you can pick up a Dual 1.5ghz Athlon with 1gig of ram for 1300$), compiling everything yourself is a possibility, but I have a dozen or so 486's, IPX's, udb's chugging along that would all but choke and die if I were to apt-get source and build everything. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
* Adam Majer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]: www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^ You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better. Microsoft Helps!(tm) incredibly excellent and appropriate way to interpret my reply (which might have been taken as a flame-attack since it was unconsciously writting sometime shortly before dawn.) If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple enough? :) Would you like to fix Xvfb for Solaris, then? There's a glitch with font handling in it... Or I can come up with a few other things, if this isn't simple enough. Dima (d'uh!) -- Mirrors and copulation are abominable because they increase the number of entities.-- corollary to Occam's Razor
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply. I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the good things it all has. Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make rough cuts most of the time, but just like Alan Cox said, I'd believe that if RedHat won't do it, probably, nobody would... (unless proven otherwise) But anyway, I like Debian better. And I use it. And I don't like RHL on my machines for the hard time they gave me maintaining them a year ago. Debian already works so fine - it ain't broke so don't fix it, but improve it. Paolo Falcone __ www.edsamail.com
Re: Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Alec wrote: On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? That time, RPM wasn't good enough (in short, it sucked big time then when it comes to the issue of maintainance and automatic dependencies resolution during distribution upgrades). As well as the plethora of duplicate work with no visible guidelines to conform to (unlike Debian's). Not so much now, as the guys at RedHat improved the RPM software. Paolo Falcone __ www.edsamail.com
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 11 January 2002 11:02 am, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote: I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply. I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the good things it all has. Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make rough cuts most of the time, but just like Alan Cox said, I'd believe that if RedHat won't do it, probably, nobody would... (unless proven otherwise) But anyway, I like Debian better. And I use it. And I don't like RHL on my machines for the hard time they gave me maintaining them a year ago. Debian already works so fine - it ain't broke so don't fix it, but improve it. I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date. I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point, you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let me tell you: upgrading Mandrake is a Perilous Journey. apt-get upgrade is the *absolute* best... - -- ++ | Ron Johnson, Jr.Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org | || ! Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not | ! hereditary...| !Dr. Dean Adell(sp?) ! ++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Pyv6jTz5dS9Us5wRAlvjAJ4sAqZhdOgnLN5e97hw5nP1OIyRMgCfSayI AlJRhzPM1bSQKhLh5qwMFU8= =6P6j -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date. I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point, you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let me tell you: upgrading Mandrake is a Perilous Journey. apt-get upgrade is the *absolute* best... Isn't there an automatic tool like Drake-update or something on Mandrake? Alec
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 11 January 2002 12:52 pm, Alec wrote: On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date. I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point, you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let me tell you: upgrading Mandrake is a Perilous Journey. apt-get upgrade is the *absolute* best... Isn't there an automatic tool like Drake-update or something on Mandrake? It sux. Never could get it to work consistently. The interface is better than dselect's is, though. - -- ++ | Ron Johnson, Jr.Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org | || ! Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not | ! hereditary...| !Dr. Dean Adell(sp?) ! ++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8PzmwjTz5dS9Us5wRAt5MAJ9A2qWnd3NhwIMqOGuI81pu0KhW3ACeLYih RXXzFYD60jpKeUytkw4hfQY= =K3+i -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.1802 +0100]: Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make rough cuts most of the time, but just like Alan Cox said, I'd believe that if RedHat won't do it, probably, nobody would... (unless proven otherwise) redhat and suse, yes. without them, a lot of the things (like isdn and many other subsystems) wouldn't be at the state of development that they are at! my problem with both companies is that they are more and more giving a flying food about private customers and are more and more being blinded by money and stepping into the footsteps of micro$oft. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] printer not ready. could be a fatal error. have a pen handy? pgpOATrr6WsS5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0152 +0100]: i also don't like that packages install all to /usr/local. i can see how ports would do this but i would expect software installed via sysinstall to go to /usr i wouldn't, but its about as useful a discussion as which whisky is best. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - if you want to convince people. they aren't going to flame if you argue sensibly. i avoid ports whenever i can. i use sysinstall to install binary packages, but that can be a pain because the search function does not work on any of the installs i've done. and it has to re download the INDEX file everytime i use it, even if its only been 30 seconds since i last used it. never used it. i use pkg_add. doesn't suffer from that. i attempted to deploy OpenBSD firewalls but the eepro driver was not stable on openbsd for the dual port chipset my systems had. openbsd would panic after a few minutes under nil load doing NAT. openbsd mailing list never responded to my questions. openbsd's mailing list tends to be picky. did you post from a properly reverse-resolvable address (yes, i know why i ask)? i later deployed an openBSD nameserver and it ran for about 6 months till i attempted to upgrade it to 2.9 (from 2.8) and the upgrade tried to compile a bunch of crap i didn't want and didn't have installed like kerberos. that and the compile bombed everytime(memory error or something). being 900 miles away i could not install off hte CD. so i had someone local wipe it out and put debian on it. least i don't have to reboot it to upgrade(OBSD 2.8-2.9 reccomended/required recompiling the kernel and rebooting before upgrading the system itself) openbsd does feel like an old, warted version of free, but to be perfectly honest, i love the guys behind it, which is why i like openbsd actually. let alone the blowfish! but: in terms of security, i don't think openbsd has that sort of leap before the others anymore as it used to. netbsd is quite awesome, and debian shouldn't complain... now i am waiting for freebsd 4.5 to come out to see if there are any related horrors to upgrading it like there was with openbsd. hoping there is not. 4.5-PRERELEASE running here with no problems. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT d- s: a-- C++() UL+++() P+ L+++ E--- W- N+ o? K? !w O- M- V PS+(+++) PE-- Y+ PGP++ t- !5 !X R-(+) !tv b+(++) DI--(++) D++(+++) G(++) e++ h* r+++ :) y++(++) --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- pgppxpTLbZOzS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:27:13PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote: If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written yet, or wasn't the most popular packager. Indeed, dpkg's beginnings predate the founding of Red Hat, and the current package format existed around the time of Red Hat's first public release. See: http://bad.debian.net/list/2000-April/000804.html -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800 Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps it's time to get to Woody? IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the same problem. Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved. :) -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgpjmyKrnwTPg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.0610 +0100]: Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite. have a look at openoffice.org or star office. what do you dislike about them? i prefer openoffice btw, it seems faster... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] * michaelw does the buildd shuffle -- #debian pgpLfy4FnFvTf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:16:04AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800 Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps it's time to get to Woody? IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the same problem. Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved. :) Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:34:33 -0600 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved. :) Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? Yeah. As of a few years ago, though(when I was doing RPM packaging), it was file-based(ie: it would say it require libc.so.6 instead of glibc2.2 or whatever). That might have changes since, though. Or I might be remembering wrong, and perhaps it always used package names(assuming the library was in an installed RPM). BTW, I see where you're heading. Yes, obviously, a great build environment will significantly ease a maintainer's burdens. But I still say that it's on the shoulders of the maintainer :) -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgpUtPP3dzCST.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]: Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses, c.f. debian ;) Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways. www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^ You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better. Microsoft Helps!(tm) Dima -- Surely there is a polite way to say FOAD.-- Shmuel Metz Fornicate Off And Decease. -- Rik Steenwinkel
OT (was Re: Debian Vs RedHat)
quote who=Dimitri Maziuk You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better. Microsoft Helps!(tm) yeah me too. about 3 years ago i quit a job at a company that i was at for about 2 years(maybe a bit longer). when i joined them ~5 years ago i liked MS software. by the time i quit i absoltely despied it. most of my work was R D with embedded(more like unmanned) win9x systems. dealing with all the headaches of trying to get win9x to run in an unmanned enviornemnt just drove me insane. i had to quit before i lost it. my bosses (I had 3 direct) actually told me on several occasions to tell them a day before i come in shooting so they can take the day off. have never had problems on any unix/linux system myself that caused an actual headache to occur or make me want to throw a machine out a window like i did with win9x/NT. (my unix/linux experience goes from slackware, redhat, suse, openbsd, freebsd, solaris/x86, solaris/sparc, Tru64, AIX, HPUX, IRIX) at least none that i can remember. i hear win2000 and XP improves on some issues, but after 8 years of using MS stuff(DOS3.x - NT4) i left and never looked back. i gave them a fair chance, i don't think they deserve another. nate
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. you feel sleepy. notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. close your eyes. the opinions stated above are yours. you cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise. pgpfFpd0K2kH5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1854 +0100]: BTW, I see where you're heading. Yes, obviously, a great build environment will significantly ease a maintainer's burdens. But I still say that it's on the shoulders of the maintainer :) but Debian's FHS-accordance is really what makes Debian stand out. with the FHS, the maintainer's choices (and thus sources of error) are really scaled down to the bare package-specific minimum, am i not right? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... doch warum sollte nicht jeder einzelne aus seinem leben ein kunstwerk machen koennen? -- michel foucault pgpZkX6YfHlQy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]: www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^ You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better. Microsoft Helps!(tm) incredibly excellent and appropriate way to interpret my reply (which might have been taken as a flame-attack since it was unconsciously writting sometime shortly before dawn.) -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] si vis pacem, para bellum pgpAFl5TSTeIO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? Alec
Re: OT (was Re: Debian Vs RedHat)
also sprach nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2049 +0100]: i hear win2000 and XP improves on some issues, but after 8 years of using MS stuff(DOS3.x - NT4) i left and never looked back. i gave them a fair chance, i don't think they deserve another. excuse me? did you *ever* productively (have to) employ either of the two? IMHO, NT4 is the last usable windoze, if windoze has to be used. XP is an absolute joke (micro$oft's long-term strategy seems to be to rule the world with a gameboy in every pocket, running XP), and 2000, well... while micky$oft surely had good intentions to improve upon and extend NT4, they really just screwed up. don't i faintly remember everything will be centrally administrateable in the MMC, or more secure??? yeah right, redmond! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] time flies like an arrow. fruit flies like a banana. -- groucho marx pgpH1FFqyV9px.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-)
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote: [snip] If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written yet, or wasn't the most popular packager. - -- ++ | Ron Johnson, Jr.Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org | || ! Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not | ! hereditary...| !Dr. Dean Adell(sp?) ! ++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8PjFhjTz5dS9Us5wRApg5AJ45cNluuLKFl0sITNaLOmMljJm2/ACfSQVf wMonwC+9VLMIrkJrVokNET4= =DfKs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Alec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0037 +0100]: If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? how long before DEB did RPM exist? (i don't know the answer. all i know about this is from having participated (and read) discussions on what should be the LSB standard, and DEB lost to RPM *only* because of RPMs larger user-base) -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. however, this is not necessarily a good idea. it is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- rfc 1925 pgpCXjI5XqLUa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]: I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really. Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-) they have their advantages, but also disadvantages. installation takes way longer... and aside, what arguments do you have against binary-based distributions? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] security here. yes, ma'am. yes. groucho glasses. yes, we're on it. c'mon, guys. somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. code blue. -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt pgp6Qmc99moqu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
quote who=Stuart Krivis I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-) while ports serve a certain purpose, i much prefer debs and apt-get over ports any day. main reasons is on most systems i don't want/need dozens of devel packages installed. i also like the idea that debian(and redhat too) keeps the sources on their own distro sites, whereas the vast majority of ports that ive seen rely on the original distribution site. i am starting to like freebsd(have been using it off and on for a couple years, deployed my first set of production servers last month running freebsd). another big complaint against freebsd(and openbsd, haven't tried BSD/OS or netbsd). is the apparent lack of effort put into the packages. config files are left generic, most packages do not provide init scripts of any kind, little documentation on how to get things to start(luckily i had a basic idea on how to use the daemons i installed as ive used them on other platforms). infact default installs appear to leave most service packages completely non functional until you rename a bunch of config files(most come with extention of .sample). i also don't like that packages install all to /usr/local. i can see how ports would do this but i would expect software installed via sysinstall to go to /usr i avoid ports whenever i can. i use sysinstall to install binary packages, but that can be a pain because the search function does not work on any of the installs i've done. and it has to re download the INDEX file everytime i use it, even if its only been 30 seconds since i last used it. that said, i love freebsd's ability to work in bridged mode, DUMMYNET for traffic shaping sofar works great, i like ipfw and ipf MUCH MUCH more then ipchains(wish someone would port one or both to linux 2.2). the basic install has full support for large files(i was shocked to see i could make 8GB files). though the kernel is big! which is odd to me. my kernel(with a decent amount of stuff compiled in) is 2.2MB. compared to about 700KB for a full blown linux 2.2 kernel. it doesn't bother me i just think about some times ive seen people complain about the size of the linux kernel .. i attempted to deploy OpenBSD firewalls but the eepro driver was not stable on openbsd for the dual port chipset my systems had. openbsd would panic after a few minutes under nil load doing NAT. openbsd mailing list never responded to my questions. i later deployed an openBSD nameserver and it ran for about 6 months till i attempted to upgrade it to 2.9 (from 2.8) and the upgrade tried to compile a bunch of crap i didn't want and didn't have installed like kerberos. that and the compile bombed everytime(memory error or something). being 900 miles away i could not install off hte CD. so i had someone local wipe it out and put debian on it. least i don't have to reboot it to upgrade(OBSD 2.8-2.9 reccomended/required recompiling the kernel and rebooting before upgrading the system itself) my freebsd server deployments are soley in the network monitoring area. each system is starting out with a single quad port ethernet card(Znyx) to sniff traffic. i will eventually upgrade them to have 2 or 3 quad port cards to sniff at other locations on the networks. the cards operate in bridged mode doing sniffing/optional firewalling and optional traffic shaping. working flawlessly sofar. now i am waiting for freebsd 4.5 to come out to see if there are any related horrors to upgrading it like there was with openbsd. hoping there is not. nate
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
* Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg? I'm not sure RPM even existed back then, or it was very rudimentary. It certainly wasn't widespread: IIRC when I first heard about RedHat, I was already using Debian (or perhaps considering the switch from Slack). Dima -- Mirrors and copulation are abominable because they increase the number of entities.-- corollary to Occam's Razor
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]: www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^ You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better. Microsoft Helps!(tm) incredibly excellent and appropriate way to interpret my reply (which might have been taken as a flame-attack since it was unconsciously writting sometime shortly before dawn.) If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple enough? :)
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0459 +0100]: If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple enough? :) h! now i get it! thanks! ;^ damn, it's 5am again... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the stage of grand illusion you walked into my life out of my dreams. -- david bowie pgpEs2SXpVdg8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Thursday 10 January 2002 19:21, Stuart Krivis wrote: --On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]: Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps? only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other things which make .rpm based systems suck (read my next post). I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-) An aquaintance of mine used gentoo and showed me that style of build system. Very cool indeed. Which is why I was thrilled to find: apt-get --compile source package_name You may not be able to build a complete source based system with it but it sure is cool.
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]: I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul. which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really. ^^ For the benefit of a lurking newbie, what is FHS-accordance? Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-) they have their advantages, but also disadvantages. installation takes way longer... and aside, what arguments do you have against binary-based distributions? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] security here. yes, ma'am. yes. groucho glasses. yes, we're on it. c'mon, guys. somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. code blue. -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0609 +0100]: For the benefit of a lurking newbie, what is FHS-accordance? the filesystem hierarchy standard[1]. it specifies very exactly where each file of a package *has* to go. that keeps the system very clean. redhat doesn't do that, so you'll have some packages in /usr, some in /usr/local, some in /usr/lib, some in /usr/share, or even more exotic names. the FHS is *strictly* enforced on all debian packages. 1. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ ps: please don't CC me on list replies. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] be nice to your kids. they'll choose your nursing home. pgpeNGURA5edQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian Vs RedHat
I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the SYSV/BSD is a valid point) Please feel free to add on, but lets keep the jokes to a minumum for now... Common to both: Integrated Package Management (rpm/deb) Alien can be used to convert RPM's to DEB and vice versa. Commercial Support from outside paid vendors Debian: Server Oriented Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for redhat but requires considerable time/effort to install] Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production) Publicly available bug archive for testing and searching System layout is SYSV like Solaris RedHat: Well Known Desktop Oriented No pre-installed install/update tool (apt) Dev and Test cycles are internal only or non-existant Bug tracking system is not available for searching System layout is BSD :wq! --- Robert L. Harris| Micros~1 : Senior System Engineer |For when quality, reliability at RnD Consulting | and security just aren't \_ that important! DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote: RedHat: System layout is BSD Nay. IMHO, SysV layout refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with start or stop arguments, while BSD layout refers to some sort of unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, both RH and Debian use SysV-style start-up scripts. Alec
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/ vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct? Thus spake Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote: RedHat: System layout is BSD Nay. IMHO, SysV layout refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with start or stop arguments, while BSD layout refers to some sort of unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, both RH and Debian use SysV-style start-up scripts. Alec :wq! --- Robert L. Harris| Micros~1 : Senior System Engineer |For when quality, reliability at RnD Consulting | and security just aren't \_ that important! DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2146 +0100]: Debian: Server Oriented not necessarily... it's pretty alround if you ask me. and so is redhat, Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production) Publicly available bug archive for testing and searching System layout is SYSV like Solaris strictly in accordance with the FHS it has proper standards it has excellent mailing lists it's non-profit it's the cleanest linux next to slackware it *is* well known it's international RedHat: No pre-installed install/update tool (apt) in fact, if you want to use the update service, you'll pay! System layout is BSD huh? i don't think so. it's commercial it's american -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] driving with a destination is like having sex to have children -- backwater wayne miller pgp1GMuuC2uVC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking, /etc/rc.d/* is the proper SysV way, but these days
even RedHat uses /etc/{init,rc?}.d
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. however, this is not
necessarily a good idea. it is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead.
-- rfc 1925
pgpU1KK47J1jU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
The /etc/rc.d/ construction is, AFAIK, a beast of Red Hat origin. Recent version (starting with 7.x, maybe?) symlink /etc/rc.d/init.d and the various rc#.d directories directly into /etc as a convenience for people who are used to the more traditional SysV layout, but functionally it's always been SysV. They do include an rc.local script which functions much like the analogous file in BSD, but it's called just like any other SysV init script. On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:17:01PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote: Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/ vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct? Thus spake Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote: RedHat: System layout is BSD Nay. IMHO, SysV layout refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with start or stop arguments, while BSD layout refers to some sort of unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, both RH and Debian use SysV-style start-up scripts. Alec :wq! --- Robert L. Harris| Micros~1 : Senior System Engineer |For when quality, reliability at RnD Consulting | and security just aren't \_ that important! DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RedHat: snip Bug tracking system is not available for searching While I get the impression that debian's bug system is more open and more widely used, Red Hat does in fact have one at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ which, as you might guess, is based on mozilla's very nice bugzilla system.
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 12:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote: I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the SYSV/BSD is a valid point) Please feel free to add on, but lets keep the jokes to a minumum for now... --- - Common to both: Integrated Package Management (rpm/deb) Alien can be used to convert RPM's to DEB and vice versa. Commercial Support from outside paid vendors Debian: Server Oriented Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for redhat but requires considerable time/effort to install] Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production) Publicly available bug archive for testing and searching System layout is SYSV like Solaris RedHat: Well Known Desktop Oriented No pre-installed install/update tool (apt) Dev and Test cycles are internal only or non-existant Bug tracking system is not available for searching System layout is BSD :wq! get back to work!
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 04:25 pm, martin f krafft wrote: RedHat: No pre-installed install/update tool (apt) in fact, if you want to use the update service, you'll pay! autorpm Never used it myself, but it is said to provide functionality similar to apt. You can ftp updates for free from RH or mirrors and satisfy the dependencies either by hand or with autorpm. Alec
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
* Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. Oh no, not another distro war... Debian: Server Oriented Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for redhat but requires considerable time/effort to install] I believe this functionality also exist in RH. It's a pain to set up, though. Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production) Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses, testing is more broken than dev. Publicly available bug archive for testing and searching Someone's already mentioned bugzilla. System layout is SYSV like Solaris FVO system layout = /etc/init.d. It's mostly quite different. Sane(r) default install (inc. non-broken C compiler, fewer network services etc.) Some degree of support for automated installation (e.g. get- and set-selections in apt). Although RH may have something like that, I dunno. ... RedHat: [If you do development] not all programs written on RedHat $VERSION will compile on RedHat $OTHER_VERSION. Not to mention other distros -- ATM we have a C++ library that compiles on RH7.1 (gcc 2.96) but not on Debian woody (gcc 2.95 and 3.0) or Solaris (gcc 2.95). RH has a long tradition of shipping b0rked compilers in FUBARed configurations. We have a bunch of RH6.2 boxen, a couple of RH7.2s, and 2 Debian woodies. I'm not too happy with my 2 workstations (Debian/woody): woody breaks way too often (e.g. right now I can't login to the gooey box, some kind of kdm problem), and I can't spend too much time fscking around with it. Installing potato and hand-rolling all the software that isn't there or is too old (that includes e.g. X) is not a viable option. My co-worker has an RH6.2 and RH7.2 boxen. He's as unhappy with them as I'm with mine -- just the other day he came to my office asking about Debian because I'm sick and tired of RedHat's stupidity -- he had hard time compiling something or other... OTGH, kdm is not broken on his box... Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways. Dima -- I have not been able to think of any way of describing Perl to [person] Hello, blind man? This is color. -- DPM
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]: Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses, c.f. debian ;) Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways. www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^ -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] the human brain is like an enormous fish -- it is flat and slimy and has gills through which it can see. -- monty python pgpgg5iCpaUzL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
On 09/01/02 Robert L. Harris did speaketh: Debian: Server Oriented RedHat: Desktop Oriented Wow, I have three Debian desktops and one Debian server. I don't see how Debian is not desktop oriented too. Hell, at least the complex desktop apps install 10 times easier than crawling through rpm hell. Oh, and I'm not sure that RedHat being well known is necessarily a bonus. Windows is well known too. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08 ...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix pgpjXvCy0ObF0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody? IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the same problem. Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite. Calyth
Re: Debian -VS- RedHat, again?
You can add yourself entries in the menus of your window manager. I use fvwm2 and there are hooks in your .fvwmrc2 that allow you to customize your wm. Just read your fvwmrc2 or equivalent, I've never done it but it should be very easy. -- Vera Mickael Stagiaire
Debian -VS- RedHat, again?
I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage this issue. StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux software as well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat Europe. I almost choked when I read the following quote from him. There are four major linux distributors and we are the only one that hasn't added proprietary extensions. I realise Corel has 'Lizard', but I was wondering if he doesn't consider Debian to be a major distributor, or what proprietary extensions has Debian introduced to Linux? I am not Anti-RedHat, I just prefer the .deb package format to the rpm format. I can't wait to install StarOffice and netscape on my system, unfortunately they are rpm's : ( If I use alien, will it update my menus for me? I installed an older version of Netscape using the install script provided by Netscape, but it didn't update my menu and I have to run Netscape by hand at the moment. I have a similar problem with Acrobat reader. I've read the doc's concerning menu's, but right now they are just over my head and I don't get much time at my system to try to puzzle it out right now. Just thought I'd share this with you. Cheers, John Gay
Re: Debian -VS- RedHat, again?
John Gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage this issue. StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux software as well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat Europe. I almost choked when I read the following quote from him. There are four major linux distributors and we are the only one that hasn't added proprietary extensions. I realise Corel has 'Lizard', but I was wondering if he doesn't consider Debian to be a major distributor, or what proprietary extensions has Debian introduced to Linux? I am not Anti-RedHat, I just prefer the .deb package format to the rpm format. I can't wait to install StarOffice and netscape on my system, unfortunately they are rpm's : ( If I use alien, will it update my menus for me? I installed an older version of Netscape using the install script provided by Netscape, but it didn't update my menu and I have to run Netscape by hand at the moment. I have a similar problem with Acrobat reader. I've read the doc's concerning menu's, but right now they are just over my head and I don't get much time at my system to try to puzzle it out right now. Just thought I'd share this with you. I too bought this month's PCPLUS - for those of you outside of Europe PCPLUS is a British computer mag which covers Linux as well as Windows. In the UK we now have a new magazine called 'Linux Answers', first issue was out on 27 October. It came with Corel WordPerfect 8, RedHat 6.0 plus loads of other Linux software on the free CDROM. I installed StarOffice 5.1a from the PCPLUS CDROM. If you do 'alien -i -d /cdrom/linux/starof~1/starof~1.rpm', substituting your path to your cdrom, you should get a Debian package created and installed. It does take a long time, so be patient. You will not automatically get a menu entry created - at least I didn't. Easy enough to do manually, though. I must say that the 5.1a version of StarOffice is a lot better than 5.0 - faster and more stable. -- Phillip Deackes Debian Linux (Potato)
Re: Debian -VS- RedHat, again?
Thanks for the tip!
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On 28-Oct-1999, Salman Ahmed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR == Peter Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PR Yes it does, but it lacks some of the advanced features of apt. What advanced features of apt are you referring to ?? Some of the points I listed at the start of the email message. Pete
RE: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
i would suggest the ami megaraid controller, it works good, is cheap, supports onboard cache and has decent drivers in both 2.0 and 2.2 i hear that mylex makes some damn good drivers for linux too ..but from what i've read their stuff is real high end and prob $$$ nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By:http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMPhttp://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Adam Greene wrote: I have to set up a RAID 5 Tower and I want to run Linux (it's a dual Xeon, Intel GX computer) and I was wondering which company currently offered RAID 5 solutions with source code drivers (or included in the latest stable kernel). -Original Message- From: aphro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 27, 1999 3:16 PM To: William T Wilson Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote: DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel. well, http://www.dpt.com/techsup/sr5drv.htm#LINUX they got boot and root disks for redhat 5.2/6.0, and binary modules (dpt_i2o.o dpt_i2o_smp.o) ..i havent checked their other controllers(yet) just those caught my attention when a friend of mine said he was having problems with that DPT card under redhat. Even if you do use a binary driver, it ought to work with any kernel of the version range it was designed to work with, RedHat or otherwise. it should, but it doesn't always. my recent install of vmware (the latest) had modules for my kernel version but they failed to load. luckily the program was able to successfully compile modules and load em. and it also is bad because take the DPT raid drivers for linux 2.2.5. chances are not that great that it will work on 2.2.10 ..2.2.13 ..it may be possible, but not nearly as good as having the source to recompile for another kernel rev. I don't agree here either. Someone has to adopt glibc first. If no one adopts it, no one will work the bugs out and it will never be ready for use. it just seemed they adopted it WAY in advance of anyone else, be it debian or slackware (or suse?? i dont remember) and it caused me a lot of trouble, just my opinon though. RedHat always maintains the current and previous major version of their release, at least for security and major bugfixes. If you aren't ready to move up to the new version, just use the previous one. my problems was more related to 3rd party stuff that people developed around the new libc. (same with glibc2.1) mostly with binary distributions. i try to compile most everything but some stuff just won't compile and using a binary is the last resort option... -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On 27-Oct-1999, Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest one. What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat that performs the same functions that apt does. Never heard of it. If it has the similar functionality to apt, great! Pete
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do. The main difference is that you can only get updates from priority.redhat.com, while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in an X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day. Peter Ross writes: On 27-Oct-1999, Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest one. What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat that performs the same functions that apt does. Never heard of it. If it has the similar functionality to apt, great! Pete -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do. The main difference is that you can only get updates from priority.redhat.com, while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in an X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day. Isn't there a command-line version of update-agent/up2date, though? And the server can be changed in the configuration from what I have heard about it. -- Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:4982727 B Grafyx http://www.bgrafyx.com L.J.R. Engineering http://www.ljreng.com PHP Interest Group http://www.gigabee.com/pig/
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ?? i always have used dftp to update my stuff ..works great. nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By:http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMPhttp://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Peter Ross wrote: On 27-Oct-1999, Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest one. What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat that performs the same functions that apt does. Never heard of it. If it has the similar functionality to apt, great! Pete -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On 27-Oct-1999, aphro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ?? You can mix and match the locations where you get the .debs from (including multiple CDs), and it will automatically pick up the latest version. You don't have to use dselect, you can do it all from the command line, which is nice when you only want to get one package. You can upgrade to a new version of debian with just one command (supposedly will handle libc upgrade without getting the system into an inconsistent state). i always have used dftp to update my stuff ..works great. Yes it does, but it lacks some of the advanced features of apt. Pete
RE: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
I have to set up a RAID 5 Tower and I want to run Linux (it's a dual Xeon, Intel GX computer) and I was wondering which company currently offered RAID 5 solutions with source code drivers (or included in the latest stable kernel). -Original Message- From: aphro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 27, 1999 3:16 PM To: William T Wilson Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote: DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel. well, http://www.dpt.com/techsup/sr5drv.htm#LINUX they got boot and root disks for redhat 5.2/6.0, and binary modules (dpt_i2o.o dpt_i2o_smp.o) ..i havent checked their other controllers(yet) just those caught my attention when a friend of mine said he was having problems with that DPT card under redhat. Even if you do use a binary driver, it ought to work with any kernel of the version range it was designed to work with, RedHat or otherwise. it should, but it doesn't always. my recent install of vmware (the latest) had modules for my kernel version but they failed to load. luckily the program was able to successfully compile modules and load em. and it also is bad because take the DPT raid drivers for linux 2.2.5. chances are not that great that it will work on 2.2.10 ..2.2.13 ..it may be possible, but not nearly as good as having the source to recompile for another kernel rev. I don't agree here either. Someone has to adopt glibc first. If no one adopts it, no one will work the bugs out and it will never be ready for use. it just seemed they adopted it WAY in advance of anyone else, be it debian or slackware (or suse?? i dont remember) and it caused me a lot of trouble, just my opinon though. RedHat always maintains the current and previous major version of their release, at least for security and major bugfixes. If you aren't ready to move up to the new version, just use the previous one. my problems was more related to 3rd party stuff that people developed around the new libc. (same with glibc2.1) mostly with binary distributions. i try to compile most everything but some stuff just won't compile and using a binary is the last resort option...
RE: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
Charlie, I am not sure what you mean by upgrade. Debian offers a unique program called apt-get which will download and install any packagein .deb format. It also scans forpackages whichhave been updated. It then downloads and updates them automatically. I haven't seen this in any other OS other than microsoft. -paul -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 1:07 AMTo: debian-user@lists.debian.orgSubject: just curious about Debian vs Redhat I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at work). Both have reasonable tools for managing software (dpkg for Debian, rpm for Redhat). I've also done upgrades for both Debian and Redhat. The upgrade I did for Debian took several nights and a few e-mails. The upgrade for Redhat took about 20 minutes (no joke). What is Debian's thrust? Why is it better than Redhat? [I'm just curious and not taking sides.] Charlie
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
i choose debian because.. - it seems to have the largest number of developers - it has BY FAR the most binary packages (2000+ in slink 4000+ in potato) - it is well respected as being a stable and secure linux i have not, do not, and will not choose redhat because .. - many software products are designed for it and don't support other distributions, not just software(applications) but drivers too. examples would be drivers for DPT raid controllers and 3com network adapters(the ones from 3com) come in binary form and depend on you using the kernel that comes with redhat. while this is not(probably) redhat's direct fault i can't help but feel some negative stuff towards them. while at other times software companies may refuse to work with you on support issues if your not using redhat, doesn't matter if the distribution your running is 101% compadible, if its not what they said you should run you're screwed. - they jump too quickly into adopting new software. i was kinda pissed when they adopted glibc before most everyone else, most people started developing stuff for glibc (and the early glibcs had MAJOR problems i saw people talking about adding hundreds of megs of updates to get redhat's glibc stuff working right) and would not run(binaries at least) and sometimes wouldn't compile on libc5 (at the time i was using slackware). they've done the same with glibc2.1 now. i think they were the first to adopt glibc2.1 on the x86 platform ?? so..chances are if u d/l a binary for redhat 6 ..you can't run it on glibc2.0 ..i also have read that when they first adopted GNOME it was still quite buggy and crashed often. i hear mandrake is good though, some have said mandrake is 'redhat done right' ..(somewhere along those lines) i think redhat is doing good things for the communitity, and although there are some side effects to their efforts to commercialize linux, they do good things, they want what's best..what's best isnt always possible for them(i.e. they gotta support intel more now that intel's invested in them, same for VA Linux systems, you see them selling AMD servers? or PowerPC? or Alpha?), which is what is great about linux, you HAVE a choice :) just my opinion. nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By:http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMPhttp://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at work). Both have reasonable tools for managing software (dpkg for Debian, rpm for Redhat). I've also done upgrades for both Debian and Redhat. The upgrade I did for Debian took several nights and a few e-mails. The upgrade for Redhat took about 20 minutes (no joke). What is Debian's thrust? Why is it better than Redhat? [I'm just curious and not taking sides.] Charlie
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
[snip - BEWARE: out of context] i hear mandrake is good though, some have said mandrake is 'redhat done right' ..(somewhere along those lines) [snip - BEWARE: out of context] When an newbie asks me for a Linux distro I give them Mandrake and tell them they can get Debian from me when they are a bit used to Linux in general. I tell them to practice with the CLI but Mandrake has a killer KDE install witch they can use to get something done. This way they get not so frightened the first time they use Linux ;-) Regards, Onno
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, aphro wrote: - many software products are designed for it and don't support other distributions, not just software(applications) but drivers too. examples would be drivers for DPT raid controllers and 3com network adapters(the DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel. I don't know about 3com drivers, but aren't there drivers for all 3com cards already in the kernel as it comes from Linus? ones from 3com) come in binary form and depend on you using the kernel that comes with redhat. while this is not(probably) redhat's direct fault Even if you do use a binary driver, it ought to work with any kernel of the version range it was designed to work with, RedHat or otherwise. And you're right - it's not RedHat's fault. - they jump too quickly into adopting new software. i was kinda pissed when they adopted glibc before most everyone else, most people started I don't agree here either. Someone has to adopt glibc first. If no one adopts it, no one will work the bugs out and it will never be ready for use. RedHat always maintains the current and previous major version of their release, at least for security and major bugfixes. If you aren't ready to move up to the new version, just use the previous one. That said, there was a lot of trouble going from libc5 to glibc. But there was plenty of trouble going from libc4 to libc5, too. There's always problems when the C library changes versions. The update to glibc 2.1 seems to be a lot smoother- probably because the change is less. d/l a binary for redhat 6 ..you can't run it on glibc2.0 ..i also have read that when they first adopted GNOME it was still quite buggy and crashed often. RedHat refused to use KDE because of the license. It is the same with Debian, I might add. They have also put a great deal of effort into helping the Gnome project. And nobody was forced to use Gnome, either. I'm still using basically the same X configuration - window manager and all - that I used with Slackware 3 way back in 1996. All I had to do was replace my .fvwmrc in my home directory and my /etc/XF86Config. Debian is a little different from RedHat - but if you ask me, the primary difference between the two at this point is RedHat's commercial focus vs. Debian's free software focus.
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote: DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel. well, http://www.dpt.com/techsup/sr5drv.htm#LINUX they got boot and root disks for redhat 5.2/6.0, and binary modules (dpt_i2o.o dpt_i2o_smp.o) ..i havent checked their other controllers(yet) just those caught my attention when a friend of mine said he was having problems with that DPT card under redhat. Even if you do use a binary driver, it ought to work with any kernel of the version range it was designed to work with, RedHat or otherwise. it should, but it doesn't always. my recent install of vmware (the latest) had modules for my kernel version but they failed to load. luckily the program was able to successfully compile modules and load em. and it also is bad because take the DPT raid drivers for linux 2.2.5. chances are not that great that it will work on 2.2.10 ..2.2.13 ..it may be possible, but not nearly as good as having the source to recompile for another kernel rev. I don't agree here either. Someone has to adopt glibc first. If no one adopts it, no one will work the bugs out and it will never be ready for use. it just seemed they adopted it WAY in advance of anyone else, be it debian or slackware (or suse?? i dont remember) and it caused me a lot of trouble, just my opinon though. RedHat always maintains the current and previous major version of their release, at least for security and major bugfixes. If you aren't ready to move up to the new version, just use the previous one. my problems was more related to 3rd party stuff that people developed around the new libc. (same with glibc2.1) mostly with binary distributions. i try to compile most everything but some stuff just won't compile and using a binary is the last resort option...
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On 26-Oct-1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at work). Both have reasonable tools for managing software (dpkg for Debian, rpm for Redhat). I've also done upgrades for both Debian and Redhat. The upgrade I did for Debian took several nights and a few e-mails. The upgrade for Redhat took about 20 minutes (no joke). What is Debian's thrust? Why is it better than Redhat? From my limited experience, the advantages of Debian are * lots of binary packages which are integrated into the Debian system * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest one. The other difference is Debian is a volunteer project (so things get finished when they are finished) and Redhat is commercial (with the pressure to get things out possibly prematurely). In other words Redhat is unstable and Debian is out of date. Pete
Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
* apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest one. What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat that performs the same functions that apt does. -- Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:4982727 B Grafyx http://www.bgrafyx.com L.J.R. Engineering http://www.ljreng.com PHP Interest Group http://www.gigabee.com/pig/
debian vs redhat
Hi all, I use Debian at home. At work we are gradually switching from Windows to Linux, and a redhat system (6 machines) has been running for about 3 months. In a couple of weeks I will be taking over as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been over-customized, I am going to reinstall them. I am going to try and convince my boss that as long as we are reinstalling, we should switch to Debian. I have my list of reasons for preferring Debian, but maybe there are some things I haven't thought of which you can mention. I am particularly interested in hearing from those who have administered both dists. Thanks, Steve
Re: debian vs redhat
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Steve Stancliff wrote: as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been over-customized, I am going to reinstall them. am going to try and convince my boss that as long as we are reinstalling, we should switch to Debian. I have my list of reasons for preferring Debian, but maybe there are some I have been/going through a similar thing. It would give you a much better understanding of the system if you have to rebuild it yourself and chances are allow you to be able to fix any system specific problems faster than if you had to learn exactly what was going on on a system someone else installed. things I haven't thought of which you can mention. I am particularly interested in hearing from those who have administered both dists. The main thing is ease of system upgrades and changes through dselect and apt-get. I allways found The Redhat package manager to be one big pain in the neck and usually chose to compile from the sources myself but in general I dont do that on my Debian systems which saves time (real and computer). Also RedHat has a habit of hiding what its doing when configuring things which make customization excessivley time consuming whereas I have found Debian to be much easier to customize/configure. just my 2 cents worth ---Gareth
