On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:21 -0500 Chris Hedemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <disclaimer>Kevin, I can understand your hesitation to respond > directly to me due to your direct relationship to my employer's > account. Just for the record, your personal feelings on this thread > and mine don't reflect the business relationship between our > respective employers.
Followup : because of this precice relationship, I have to be *EXTREEMLY* careful about what I say. While my opinion is my own, it can have an impact on my relationship with my employer and my clients. But you all knew that, right? *grin* Oh, and i need to do something in procmail to adjust your messages to make them readable in sylpheed without special help. I think I know the kind of pain OE users go through when I send them messages from mutt. All your messages are application/pgp for content type. OK, on to the stuff I can safely address : > Anything in particular about apt-rpm that bugs you? Or just lack of > familiarity with it? I mean, are there any specific problems you've > heard of to unsettle you or anything like that? The last code audit on it was not pleasing. I think a new one needs to be done, but by someone more qualified than I am doing it. While there aren't any reports that I know of apt4rpm eating rpm database, until I get a code audit from an rpm expert, I'll hold back. I'm not going to reccomend it to an enterpise customer - you gave the reasons why pretty clearly for me. *grin* > Well to some extent you are being tracked. You have a valid email > address that everything is indexed against. You have information > about your currently installed packages being profiled & sent to Red > Hat to be indexed against your personal identifier. So while you can > elect to not send a hardware profile, you are sending a profile of > your installed packages and you are linking it to your personal > identifier. Is this an accurate understanding? This is correct as I understand it. Again, though, there are enough throw-away email services, that even that linkage isn't that difficult to get around. Yes, the pacakges are tracked, but then again, how else does rhn know to send oyu a "this package is out of date" email? Now, I've had machines get out of wack on that sync, and had to manually re-sync the package list. So it's being sent up as frequently as, say, Windows Update. > And that's cool. For what I do, up2date is currently the best option > at the office. It's far from ideal, being too much like a "Windows > Update for Linux" than the heterogeneous package management tool that > I really want. Personal preference. Heck, I don't think I've used the GUI for up2date in a long time. I do it all command line. Much nicer on VPN sessions :) As to the rest, no it's not ideal, but it's a lot better than some of the alternatives. apt4rpm has some great features, but for what I do, and how I do things, up2date rocks. And yes, all my machines are in the web rhn interface. It's SLICK. I had no idea it was so slick until I got here. > Ummm I could be mistaken but I think up2date *is* verifying GPG sigs > (kudos). Oh, sorry - up2date does this automatically. I'm just not sure about apt4rpm. > I wouldn't say that. I would say that it is not, by design, an > enterprise package management tool. It is intended for the end user of > > an individual workstation to use to manage package installation & > dependencies. It is not meant at all for centralized management by an > > IT organization like up2date/rhn. Ah, a very good point. I stand (somewhat) corrected. :) -- ---------------------------------- -- Kevin Sonney -- -- ICQ: 4855069 AIM: ksonney -- ---------------------------------- 1024D/320C 0336 3BC4 13EC 4AEC 6AF2 525F CED7 7BB6 12C9 I will rule you all with an Iron Fist! You! Obey the fist! -- Invader Zim
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
