Distribution Wars at User Friendly 105
merrell I think Illiad
has been reading Slashdot again: the latest user friendly cartoon almost
looks like a conversation lifted
from these pages.
Wacky.
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
Luddites, BAH! (Score:1)
Then, rpm -e package_name
Overall, packages from RedHat do contain the proper list of files, and the pre/post un/in-stall scripts are reasonably well. I haven't looked over each and every one, as I pretty much just make things myself. But how well a package uninstalls comes down to whomever made the package. If they do things properly, there's no trouble.
Why? (Score:1)
I set Mandrake up on a spare PC recently. I had all the network, X, etc configurred nicely in under a half hour. Gotta love Redhat for that FTP install (no CDROM in this computer).
Read boot info from a CD? (Score:1)
How is it proprietary, you idiot? (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
RE:Around the world (Score:1)
I thought so...
RE:Around the world (Score:1)
TurboLinux too (Score:1)
--
Pitr's choice (Score:1)
--
user friendly is stupid (Score:1)
Also, UF mentions the terms "Open Source" and "Linux". UF loads faster (to me anyway).
I think the point has been missed entirely (Score:1)
I find it extremely hard to believe that Red Hat is getting slammed for trying to make money, and that you're letting this debate get so out of hand! Do you folks want Linux to succeed? In ten years, do you want your mom running a Linux box at home instead of Windows? (Actually, that question is kind of iffy.) Anyway, the success of Linux will depend on a standard most everyone can agree on, and it'll depend on vendors to sell support and apps. Hard-core tech heads have to realize that in order for the penguin to take on Microsoft, some of that hacker purity will have to be sacrificed in the name of standardization, profits and marketing. Is that a good thing for Linux? I wouldn't presume to debate that. But geez...factionalism like the kind I've read in this string will certainly doom Linux faster than Win98 running an IE beta.
And as for User Friendly, it's perhaps the funniest thing on the Web. One of these days, I'll convince my editor to run a story on him.
Tomorrow's edition.. (Score:1)
Pitr's choice (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Pitr's choice (Score:1)
j/k
Almost every distribution comes with a download of the Linux Documentation Project, and at last look there wasn't one. I'm owning up to the fact it just might be too ambitios for any one person.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Children! Please Stop! (Score:1)
If that were really the case, then none of these personal preference items would be an issue.
Only because your comparison is absurd is there a potential problem. Even then, it becomes a philosophical or engineering issue over what one should spend more time on: design or implementation.
Redhat, BAH! (Score:1)
To my knowledge, there is no set "standard" for "script or info file"s in
Isn't the source code available for the RPM utils? Doesn't that, by definition, make it not proprietary?
And, for the record, the only time I've ever had trouble with RedHat (5.0 *or* 5.2) is when I tried to install it over an existing Slackware installation. Obviously this is kind of a dumb thing to do. Since then I've never had problems on any system I've installed 5.[02]. Now, I'll admit that some people do have problems, but those people (like you) should be able to at least admit it's possible that your specific configuration or administration "habits" might be the source of your problems, not some inherent flaw in the distribution.
Ah, how familiar... (Score:1)
Daniel
Distributions (Score:1)
It's funny you mention this. It's like the MSNBC article comparing RedHat, OpenLinux, and SuSe. They reported Apache ran faster on OpenLinux. Well...it's ashame they didn't use the same version of Apache on each distribution. They used a newer version of Apache on OpenLinux than RedHat and SuSe.
"In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
No No No no NO! (Score:1)
It HAS to be Caldera!!!!!
Slackware's Dead, baby... (Score:1)
no (powerful) package management
no problem
or something
Distributions (Score:1)
I still wish I had more comparative information on the different distributions. I've used both Red Hat and Debian and if I really had to make a choise between the two, I probably couldn't tell which one to choose.
A while back I read an article that compared the speed of Apache on different distributions. I was surprised at the speed differences and wonder if there's similar differences with other software if no superfine speed tweaking has been done...
Anyone know good data on the subject?
Oh, nice toon, too.
As a PPC user... (Score:1)
I know Win98 w/'newimprovedusbsupport' came out at the same time but all those peripherals are iMac schemed, not Win98 schemed if you catch my drift. Anyways. I can't wait til I've got some more cash so I can replace my aging Tower of Power Macs with a G3 Pro and iWhack dumb terminals so I can run my Mac stuff and access the linux server thru Mac X to compile and shit.
whatever, I'm just rambling, must be the flu.
Whatever (Score:1)
not only can I kick your ass but my ancient Mac could kick yours. how do I know, anyone whos posts shit like that anonymously must be afraid of reprisals.
bah, you're probably not worth the bother, you've already died a thousand deaths.
As a PPC user... (Score:1)
Around the world (Score:1)
So far:
Slackware, SuSE, Redhat, Debian, Turbolinux, Stampede, BeOS, FreeBSD, Solaris 2.6, NT. I also booted Plan 9 for a moment...
Which is best? I suppose this would comprise an entire article. Debian appeals to my free software sensibilities, and has an excellent package manager, and follows the File System Standard fairly well. SuSE is dreamy; I love it, and that is the OS running on it now (Debian is still on my primary system). BeOS was neat, but is interesting only as a developer, not a user; there is almost no software for it on Intel. Everything else was less than excellent, though many were more than satisfactory. Notably sad, of course, was NT, with Solaris coming in a close second for silliness and bloat.
Ah, how familiar... (Score:1)
Linux versus BSD arguments have been the worst because neither side has any real advantage over the other. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. (Perhaps a compromise? BSD/Linux? Running Linus' kernel as a microkernel over BSD would prove interesting, albeit with a lot more overhead...)
Oh, and some fuel for the fire: BSD has real threads support. Have at you, Linux dogs! :)
ports (Score:1)
However, given that most ftp sites for any given rpm or deb will also have a dependency rpm/deb package, this may be a moot point.
Why choose one? (Score:1)
People love to compare aspects of their favorite O/S's because, let's face it, each O/S has its strong points. We all wish we could have an O/S with the strengths of every other O/S with none of the weaknesses.
For instance, FreeBSD executes system calls directly from the stack (as opposed to Linux, which calls it from the stack to a register). Whether this is a good or bad thing is dependent on what you're looking for.
The speed of DMA for a syscall is a plus for speed junkies on x86. On the other hand, it means that you can't port it easily to RISC processors, which require that all calls be run from registers anyway (thank you patterson and hennessy). Linux would be a wee bit more portable then, at the risk of losing DMA. What is more valuable? Totally subjective.
oh well...
What about Slackware? (Score:1)
Slackware is the best, in my opinion. I run 3.6 on a Pentium 100 at home on a 2.2.2 kernel, and I've never had a problem. I've tried Debian 2.0.2, but just getting past the Install was a chore in itself. I promptly switched back to Slackware.
Accipiter
I can say that I've enjoyed Mandrake.... (Score:1)
Thus far I've enjoyed Mandrake as it's easy to install, doesn't default to that ugly FVWM (uses KDE instead
Administration has been a breeze and it comes with the basic GNOME libs and apps as well....
Not to mention the extra CD's that come with it that really save me time from downloading them off of the net!
Go Mandrake!
Nick
Linux Systems Group
user friendly is stupid (Score:1)
Not funny (Score:1)
Don't get uppity... (Score:1)
cartoon (Score:1)
Ok,Ok (Score:1)
is the best linux distribution. Redhat's RPM tech is fine for most users and personally I like the convienence that it provides. On the other hand I don't really like not being able to trade packages with my Slackware box. I think after a little more development RPM will become an essential part of Linux. RPM is nothing more than a glorified version of tar.gz and
-Kp2
the rebirth of the ADM3! (Score:1)
Well, less the pretty colors (or are they flavors?). Regardless, I can't see an iMac without laughing - just because of the cases (I've got nothing against the machines themselves per se).
If you can't stand the heat, get off the Internet (Score:1)
Read boot info from a CD? Easy! (Score:1)
Worked for me.
X
Redhat, BAH! (Score:1)
Our DEC Alphas here at work don't have gzip; neither does Solaris (although I haven't checked the new Solaris 7 distro yet). What an odd omission. Anyone know why they don't include it?
You're still without clue (Score:1)
What's next, flaming
Windows 95 - So easy no wonder it's #1 (Score:1)
Ah, how familiar... (Score:1)
I agree; this is where the real heated debate appears.
But I do have to take issue with your threads comment; it should be the other way around.
Ummm... (Score:1)
--
- Sean
Can't do that. (Score:1)
Or didn't you see that?
--
- Sean
What about The Modern Ages? (Score:1)