Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh.

Distribution Wars at User Friendly 105

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-is-funny dept.
merrell I think Illiad has been reading Slashdot again: the latest user friendly cartoon almost looks like a conversation lifted from these pages. Wacky.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Distribution Wars at User Friendly More

Distribution Wars at User Friendly

Comments Filter:
  • First, make the packages yourself and ensure that everything is taken care of.

    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)

    by whoop ( 194 )
    Mandrake is really just Redhat with KDE as the default window manager and all, and maybe some updated RPMs. If your Linux box is up and running fine, there's little point in trying it. But if you're out for some adventure, go ahead and format and go.

    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).
  • I was looking at making some modifications to a RedHat cd I have (update, add different RPMs, etc). But one thing that's stumped me is the boot information on it. Several Windows CD burning programs I've looked into (it's all they have the CDR attached to here), say to make a boot floppy then use it's image in the program. But there's gotta be a way to just rip that image off the CD, for modification and eventual re-burning. Would just dd'ing 1.44mb from the start of the CD do it?
  • If I can get the source to rpm, which I can, I don't see how it can be called proprietary. Sure, Red Hat may have _coded_ it, but that in and of itself doesn't make rpm "proprietary".

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • How come you didn't try Win98? Whatsamatta, are you afraid of a real OS?
    I thought so...

  • How come you didn't try Win98? Whatsamatta, are you afraid of a real OS? I thought so...
  • BTW, if you're using LinuxPPC (or any flavor for PPC other than the MkLinux), the new 2.2.x kernel screams!
    --
  • I thought Pitr was more the Slackware type, myself.
    --
  • Let's see...*every* User Friendly is available (as opposed to the last month of Dilbert, with a 1-week delay). And the copyright of UF is less restrictive than that of Dilbert.

    Also, UF mentions the terms "Open Source" and "Linux". UF loads faster (to me anyway).


  • Posted by Mike@ABC:

    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.
  • ..should be a battle between Gnome, KDE, and console freaks.
  • Where would there be a roll your own FAQ? It sounds complex, but it should be a really good culmination of a lot of good Howtos that are somewhat complex and incompatable otherwise. Someone let me know if you find one.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
  • A roll your own distribution faq in a distribution?

    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.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~ ^~
  • This is the ultimate in NewSpeak. One has the individuality and balls to make choices and then argue over them and you have the audacity to compare that with Zombie-ism.

    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.

  • RPM, while designed and implemented by RedHat, is hardly proprietary. You can install rpm on any Linux system and be able to use .rpm files just fine.

    To my knowledge, there is no set "standard" for "script or info file"s in .tar.gz packages. If you wanted to upgrade an existing .tar.gz package, there's no easy way to do it short of duplicating the installation procedure, overwriting what's already there. This can end up leaving orphaned files (no longer used by the new version) and overwriting existing configuration files. I'm not saying RPM is the only format that supports some of these cases, but it certainly does a better job of managing your applications than .tar.gz, .zip and .shar packages.

    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.
  • The main difference is that all Linux distros use almost exactly the same code base..the only real code tweaking individual distros do is to patch up extremely nasty bugs while waiting for the next version..

    Daniel
  • 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...

    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

  • It HAS to be Caldera!!!!!
  • no glibc
    no (powerful) package management
    no problem

    or something

  • 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. ;)
  • ..I only have to chose from MkLinux, LinuxxPPC, and YellowDog. Soon Debian and others will also have PPC distros as well for my Mac. WHY?! Either Mac users have a higher percentage of Linux users than PC users do (I wouldn't be suprised) or the Mac market is bigger than people really think. I'm not complaining mind you, it just seems like Apple/Mac users either do something so far advanced it takes years to catch on or they wait for it to become standard on PC's then they overdo it like this USB thing. On a side note, ironic that PC's had USB for years but itlanguished until Apple's iWhack came out :-)
    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.

  • bugger off you cowardly little bastard.
    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.


  • I decided that the best use of my 6100 was to turn him (his name is Alan Turing) into a Linux box. Why? Well, 6100's are notoriously ssssslllooooowwwww, and have NuBus (a strange interior config) as well. They vie in general wonkyness with the iMac that replaced him. However, he does right dandy with a command-line interface, and can render KDE with exquisite color and graphics. As a matter of fact, after playing with the iMac running 8.5.1, I began to really crave Linux...
  • I have been making a point of installing an OS each week on my spare Cyrix 200MX, 64M system.
    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.
    1. This is so true :) But we're forgetting the biggest "flavor fight" yet... Linuxen versus the BSDs!
    2. Both are open source.
    3. Both are robust.
    4. Both are splintered into a numbers of specialized distributions

    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)

    by sinator ( 7980 )
    The advantage to ports is when installation of a package can't be done due to a dependency failure, it automatically fetches the dependency as well. rpm, for example, will just tell us what's missing.

    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.
  • One of the facts that a lot of people neglect is, no matter how much flaming occurs, splinter O/S's _WILL_ be produced. Open source isn't just about free, or reliable software; a lot of it is to hack the good hack just because you want to!

    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...
  • DAMN SKIPPY!

    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've used just about every single distribution available, including some that are not even out yet.( we get sent a LOT of betas)
    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

  • UF is funny when it's not running fanfic that fawns over Linux or OSS. I liked the general geek stuff, like when the dustpuppy understood the idea of christmas decorations after looking at a modem rack. Or The Smiling Man. I mean the occasional references to geek culture are nice, but when you try to look like an insider by regurgitating every reference you can come up with, you look more like a reporter ("that there newfangled internet ...") than an insider.
  • nuff said.
  • Slashdot's not the only place in the world where discussions like this go on.
  • You're all just a bunch of juvenile flaming idiots. This was supposed to be about the cartoon! I wanted to talk about the cartoon! Waaa!

  • Ok,Ok (Score:1)

    by Kp2 ( 12516 )
    I personally that a combination of Redhat and SUSE
    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 .sh. All you get more is dependencies and management.
    -Kp2
  • The iMac case is a dead on clone for the old dumb terminal ADM3's. You know, the ones out there just before the VT100 hit the scene. One of the last terminals that didn't support full screen mode, forcing you to use line editing or else :)

    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).
  • Actually, I've done this before. It's pretty simple. Use the boot disk image that comes with redhat. :)

    Worked for me.
    X
  • "As for being standard, cpio is way more standard than tar.gz - there's still commercial Unices that are shipped without gnu tar or gzip."

    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?
  • Read the thread. RPM DOES build on an existing tool. It's called "cpio". Read your man page, it's a standard UNIX utility. And RedHat supplies rpm2cpio so those who are inclined can read just the cpio parts.

    What's next, flaming .tar files for only being readable by tar? Oops, not true: cpio can read .tar files.
  • but it's true, you know.

  • 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.
  • Is it just me, or does this person have WAAAAYYYY too much free time??
    --
    - Sean
  • He just said that the only CDR's he had were attached to Windows boxen.

    Or didn't you see that?
    --
    - Sean
  • Wow, This sounds like a Microsoft Windows / OS2 flame from 5 years ago. I think each distribution has its own good qualities. I like the lean-ness of Slackware. I use it for my firewall / ipmasquerading machine and it has been up for 3 months now(I'd like to see NT do that). I use redhat for my desktop machine because I like Gnome and Enlightenment. Instead of flaming each distribution, we should appreciate the fact that we have a choice......

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close