В 15:24 +0100 на 19.12.2013 (чт), jan...@yopmail.com написа:
http://gdnewhat.org/
Hi list,
I've noticed that there are questions in this thread what is the
difference between RPM-based and Debian-based distributions, which is
better etc. etc. I decided to share my observations on the *technical*
side of RPM distributions, although they might be considered too
negative.
The following is my opinion for RPM based systems and might or might not
be true and objective. I've done my best to be objective. Don't start an
argument with me unless what you have to say has some use for the others
on the mailing list. I'll try to keep it quiet.
RPM based systems are damn awkward, to put it mildly. I've used the
following distributions for a desktop in the past, so I think I have
some objective judgement:
* Red Hat 6x - few months (absolute max 1 year)
* Slackware - 1-2 years
* Gentoo - around 2 years+
* Debian - around 4 years+ (still at work)
* Trisquel - since 2010 till now
Currently I work for a startup cloud provider based on OpenStack (Apache
2 licensed free software), [1] so I've seen a lot of things on different
distributions with real life problems.
*Technically* there is nothing better than Debian(-based) system:
* number of available packages
* supported architectures
* long term support
* ease of setup and administration
* package dependencies
* consistency
* upgradable to newer versions
...
Ubuntu as an exception has its quirks, but that is a totally different
story.
RPM based systems are awful. Last year and a half I had to administer
CentOS distributions at work and it was just a nightmare. Finally they
were migrated to a real operating system.
The following is a little (non-complete) list of the usual problems that
will be encountered with RPM based distributions:
* Network configuration is split into at least 3 files.
* Configuration files are mostly all capital - bad design; hard editing
* Configurations in general reside in a non-trivial place
(/etc/sysconfig/).
* As far as I remember /etc/hostname is at all missing or not used.
(Missing/incorrect hostname is a huge problem)
* Kernels in latest versions of CentOS are still 2.6.something.; Might
not be a problem with latest Linux-Libre.
* An additional repository (EPEL) provided by Fedora have to be added
manually for extra packages, which sometimes are essential.
* Switching to superuser does not provide the extra */sbin paths unless
a special extra option is provided.
* Limited text mode installer - (not limited to) no custom partitioning.
* Different init system
* missing rc.local in newer versions (RPM-based in general); yes yes,
who needs it, but sometimes it is essential for non-trivial stuff
* some system command line tools are different, but that is somewhat
normal - software installation, services startup setup, system users and
group names
These might seem as little things, but when they sum up, for daily usage
it just does not work.
Fedora is quite the opposite of CentOS - they are bleeding edge. My
experience with Fedora is limited compared to CentOS, but I've noticed
it has some(all?!) of the awkwardness of CentOS.
An RPM based system is your enemy, if you have to use the command line.
It doesn't help you, it gets in your way. I guess it won't differ much
for the desktop.
The Fedora community is doing great job in supporting and improving free
software, but RPM distributions... I don't know... I want something that
actually works, spoils me, acts (almost) the same way every time and is
dependable.
Regards,
[1] http://www.openstack.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part