[buug] Re: Buug digest, Vol 1 #498 - 14 msgs, tired of red hat

luis lramos3 at satx.rr.com
Sun May 4 21:08:15 PDT 2003


buug-request at weak.org wrote:

> Send Buug mailing list submissions to
>         buug at weak.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         buug-request at weak.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         buug-admin at weak.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Buug digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (John de la Garza)
>    2. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    3. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    4. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Sean Neakums)
>    5. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>    6. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    7. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    8. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>    9. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   10. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   11. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Michael Paoli)
>   12. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>   13. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   14. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 09:54:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> Cc: buug at weak.org
> To: mikron <mikron at idiom.com>
> From: John de la Garza <john at jjdev.com>
>
> consider slackware
>
> http://slackware.com
>
> it is actually a bit like BSD but it is Linux
>
> it has a simple package management system
>
> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 12:53 AM, mikron wrote:
>
> > hey folks,
> >
> > for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want
> > to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?
> > I am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
> > software available.
> >
> >
> > Some quick questions:
> >
> > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> >
> > 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> > linux environment?
> >
> > 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> > yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
> >
> > 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> >
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > Buug mailing list
> > Buug at weak.org
> > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Aaron T Porter <atporter at primate.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Aaron T Porter wrote:
>
> >       I'd disagree on that. FreeBSD is *very* different from an admin
> > standpoint. Fortuately there is copious documentation, in particular the
> > FreeBSD Handbook (http://freebsd.org).
>
> from an administrative standpoint, each flavour of UNIX is decidedly
> different than the other. from a user perspective, it's much the same.
>
> between man pages, some reading, and use, it takes very little to pick up
> another UNIX-clone and know enough about it to understand what's going on.
>
> Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> >       Or LFS, which isn't so much a distribution as a HOWTO for
> > building your own.
>
> due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS at
> all. How much do you like it?
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Sean Neakums <sneakums at zork.net>
> Organization: The Emadonics Institute
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 19:50:24 +0100
>
> "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org> writes:
>
> > Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.
>
> For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
> supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.
>
> --
> Sean Neakums - <sneakums at zork.net>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:08:59 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> > due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS
> > at all. How much do you like it?
>
>         I have not ever gone through the LFS instructions
> step-by-step, so I cannot speak to their qualities in that regard.
> The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
> construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
> release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR
> packaging system, which is also used by the GNOME project to
> distribute testing releases).
>
>         If you're looking for automated source-compile distributions,
> there are a few nowadays, with Gentoo being the most popular (or at
> least the one with the best marketing/PR push).  I believe Rick has a
> list of them in his copious documentation about the various free
> Unixes.
>
>         But as you read his docs, you'll grow to understand that
> calling out "what distributions do you like, and why?" is likely to be
> a futile effort.  Personal opinion and historical accident play too
> strong a role for anyone's claims to be applicable to your situation.
>
>         Fortunately, there is hope!  Most of the relevant
> distributions provide downloadable ISO images or other installation
> media at no charge!  Many are mirrored around the world on
> high-bandwidth servers!  You can purchase a large cross-section of
> free unix distros from some of the CD-ROM publishers for a minimal
> fee, and then try them out as you go!
>
>         Nothing beats personal experience on this one.  Give each
> distro a couple weeks to a month, and then swap.  If you keep your
> home directory backed up, you can almost act like nothing changed for
> the most part.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Sean Neakums <sneakums at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Sean Neakums wrote:
>
> > For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
> > supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.
>
> well, like BSD was, and Solaris is, you buy the hardware to specifically
> run that OS.
>
> generally, that's not a bad idea anyway, despite it not being very
> hackish.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> > The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
> > construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
> > release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR packaging
> > system, which is also used by the GNOME project to distribute testing
> > releases).
>
> hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
> gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
> stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:39:41 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> > hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy
> > with the gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like
> > something more stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the
> > way to go.
>
>         Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
> base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
> Dependencies are solved automatically.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:31:36 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):
>
> > Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
> > base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
> > Dependencies are solved automatically.
>
> Concur -- but it's difficult to beat Slackware, Stampede, or the various
> build-from-source distributions (Gentoo, LFS = Linux from Scratch,
> Sourcemage, Lunar Linux, Rock Linux, Sorcerer) for extreme lack of
> cruft.
>
> Debian has a very distinct appeal once you master some Debianisms,
> but it's not sparse, nearly-bare-metal Unix.
>
> http://www.distrowatch.com/ may be of some use to people looking for
> Linux distributions to try.  It even has a separate list of
> build-from-source distributions -- which omits LFS, perhaps on the
> principle you cited that it's less a distribution than a set of
> system-construction documentation.
>
> --
> Cheers,                            Why, yes, _of course_ I'm an elitist.
> Rick Moen                          Isn't everyone?
> rick at linuxmafia.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:35:34 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting f.johan.beisser (jan at caustic.org):
>
> > hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
> > gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
> > stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.
>
> In addition to comments I posted to Nick, a moment ago, if you want to
> explore on the BSD side instead, I'd consider NetBSD the most stripped
> down of that family -- though FreeBSD otherwise better meets my needs.
>
> I'd surmise that NetBSD's relative sparseness is a side-effect of its
> extremely portable design, for whatever that's worth.
>
> --
> Cheers,      "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
> Rick Moen     woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers
> rick at linuxmafia.com       to kill again."  -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column,
>               describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Paoli <michael1cat at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> To: buug at weak.org
>
> Well, I'll attempt to not be too redundant, anyway ...
> --- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> > for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want
> > to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?  I
> > am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
> Knowing why you're sick of Red Hat and why you're thinking of Debian and
> FreeBSD - and perhaps also what family(/ies) of hardware you have to
> play with might help a bit.
> > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not RPM.
> Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
> to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX
> distributions.  Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
> of two ways:
> A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
> RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
> B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
> Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
> package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
> that means.
> And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
> anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
> Debian package anyway. :-)  [Okay, so maybe there may be some exceptions
> if you want to install come commercial closed-source binary-only
> RPM packages.]
> Debian uses a System V / LSB style init/runlevel/rc configuration.
> > 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> > linux environment?
> I haven't really worked with the *BSDs, but I'd guestimate it would
> mostly depend on how many non-LINUX UNIXes one is familiar with.  Every
> UNIX(-like) Operating System is a bit different, and for better or
> worse those differences tend to be most noticeable in the Systems
> Administration realm.  Once one's worked with enough different
> "flavors", one can at least better anticipate where to expect the
> differences to show up - but there's always at least some learning
> curve.
> > 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> > yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
> You can find at least some of this information by poking around the
> relevant sites and doing some research on the Internet.  Hard numbers
> are a bit harder to come by, though - particularly where software can be
> freely duplicated and used, and need not be sold.  Extensive (balanced
> and comprehensive) survey techniques are probably the best way to gather
> such data - unfortunately that's a fairly expensive process - hence the
> data is a bit more sparse than one may wish.
> > 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
> Debian rocks! - cool, very solid, best in the "free" senses of the word.
>
> Other random comments:
> Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX distribution to install (not
> necessarily a top recommendation for a LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're
> going to install it themselves unassisted).
> Some excellent ways to stay on top of Debian stuff - subscribe to Debian
> Announcements/News (debian-announce) and Debian Weekly News
> (debian-news).  You can also peruse the archives of these items.
> If you run Debian system(s), you should probably also subscribe to
> debian-security-announce.
> Since you mentioned you have Red Hat installed, there's an item in the
> most recent Debian Weekly news that may be of interest - see the
> item: "Installing Debian over a remote GNU/Linux System.
> This document explains the steps required to change the operating system
> running on a remote system to Debian." in:
> http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/17/
> No guarantees that's easier or preferred means compared to doing an
> ordinary Debian installation - but with Red Hat already installed, it
> may be worth looking at (if nothing else, it can be at least a useful
> "trick" for remotely converting a system to Debian).
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:52:27 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  Michael Paoli  quotation:
> > --- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> > > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> > Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not
> > RPM.  Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is
> > superior to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard
> > for LINUX distributions.
>
>         Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have
> no real benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.
> They make sure that all the packages are created in a consistent
> unified manner, making tools like apt even *possible*.
>
>         Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
> dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
> fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:24:43 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> [Hoping none of this comes across as harsh; it's just that you hit a
> number of points that I've been trying to educate people on.]
>
> Quoting Michael Paoli (michael1cat at yahoo.com):
>
> > Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
> > to RPMs ...
>
> This is vague.  Moreover, it commits a category error, in as much as
> Debian's package system can be used with RPMs -- either on Debian or on
> other distributions including Red Hat.
>
> Please read: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy
> Salient points:  (1) There's nothing the least bit wrong with either the
> RPM package format or the rpm package-handling tool.  (2) What is
> primarily distinctive about Debian is neither its package format nor its
> package-handling tools, but rather its _policy_ -- a term with a
> technical meaning in this context, extensively defined in the Debian
> Policy document (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and strictly
> enforced upon package maintainers by automated package-checking software.
>
> > ...but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX distributions.
>
> Honestly, this turns out to be just about semantically null:  When
> interpreted literally, it's arguably true, but seems to say a great deal
> more than it actually does.
>
> > Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
> > of two ways:
> > A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
> > RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
> > B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
> > Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
> > package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
> > that means.
>
> This is true, but, since you mentioned LSB, I'm surprised you didn't
> also mention the Debian "lsb" package, installation of which
> more-or-less ensures full LSB v. 1.2 compliance.  It's kind of a
> core-structure shim with a list of 28 dependencies that collectively
> furnish all required support for the full LSB spec:
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/lsb.html
>
> I say "more or less" because it's not technically LSB-certified through
> passage of official test suites, but reportedly does the job.
>
> > And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
> > anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
> > Debian package anyway. :-)
>
> Over 8000 packages on the "stable" branch; over 11000 on the "testing"
> and "unstable" ones.  My production servers track the "testing" branch.
>
> > Extensive (balanced and comprehensive) survey techniques....
>
> Hah hah!  You slay me.  You really do.
>
> > Other random comments: Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX
> > distribution to install (not necessarily a top recommendation for a
> > LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're going to install it themselves
> > unassisted).
>
> This distressingly common erroneous comment reflects the nearly
> universal lack of comprehension that Debian can be installed through
> your choice of about a dozen different installer programs, which differ
> very widely -- and a lack of comprehension of the fact that Debian is a
> system architecture and maintenance regime, _not_ a particular installer
> program.
>
> Thus, for example, if you use Knoppix as your installer program (which
> means you're on x86 and wish to get a "kitchen sink" installation),
> Debian _is_ just about the easiest Linux distribution to install:  The
> Knoppix installer script does unsurpassed and totally automated hardware
> recognition, and asks a bare minimum of questions.  (By the same token,
> expert users would find it lacking in flexibility.)
>
> No matter whether you use the Knoppix installer, the Progeny Graphical
> Installer ISO, the Xandros Desktop OS installer, the Libranet installer,
> the (somewhat obsolete but still usable) Stormix installer, or the
> much-maligned but highly flexible plain-vanilla official Debian
> installer, what results at the end is Debian -- in any meaningful sense.
>
> --
> Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
> Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
> rick at linuxmafia.com         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:42:24 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):
>
> > Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have no real
> > benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.  They make
> > sure that all the packages are created in a consistent unified manner,
> > making tools like apt even *possible*.
> >
> > Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
> > dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
> > fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.
>
> Strongly concur.  This is the main point I try to get across in
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy .
>
> To commenting further (and my real reason for AOLing your post), the
> obnoxiously common notion that the rpm package format somehow comprises
> a "standard" is pretty much clueless from top to bottom:  Just pulling
> down a *.i386.rpm package from J. Random Archive and doing "rpm -Uvh
> foo.i386.rpm" in expectation of success -- merely because you run _some_
> rpm-based distribution for Intel -- is an excellent way to fux0r your
> system, and is a common bonehead error among new users.  In fact, only
> if the package is built for specifically _both_ your particular
> distribution _and_ its distribution release version are you reasonably
> likely to be able to install it -- dependencies permitting.
>
> _LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated.
> RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented.
>
> --
> Cheers,           find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us
> Rick Moen
> rick at linuxmafia.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>
> End of Buug Digest

   Once you try FreeBSD, you may very well like it much better than Linux.  For
example, it's package/ports handling abilities are much more advanced than Linux's.
You'll have to know more about configuring programs than with Linux.  In other words,
it has less eye candy.  Good luck.  Luis




More information about the buug mailing list