[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From what I gather Slackware is a little harder to learn than Redhat, >>but a little more... configurable? > > > But a very more instructive ! Once you will know Slackware, you will > be able to manage any Unix system. You will learn the filesystem, > what is set up where, the syntax of each config files and so on. > In Red Hat, Linuxconf or some others tools do it for you, so you do > not learn so much.
You have some good points, but there is one bad assumption that you have made. Redhat users do not automatically use Linuxconf and its ilk. Just because graphical config wizards are available to me does not mean that I use them. My config tool of choice is vim. As for learning Slack and knowing all other Unices by default, I think that is a bit of a pipe dream. I am a Redhat user, and have been for quite some time. I had no problem when I got a job that required me to admin Solaris boxen, but there was a learning curve. And there always will be. Even if you understand the Unix philosophy, you have to get used to what tools Unix vendor FooSoft provides, where they live, where the config files go, etc. I see your point about Slack providing fewer "crutches" than Redhat. But if you care about being a Unix sysadmin, you choose not to use crutches and kludges because you want your knowledge to be portable. I think, in many ways, Redhat is the emacs of distros. Everything and the kitchen sink is included, but that does not stop you from just doing things the way you want, and you are not forced to use the more "newbie friendly" functionality. -Josh -- Josh Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Systems Administrator INCOGEN, Inc.
