What's the most stable version?

What's the most stable version?

Post by Sam Trenhol » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00



[This belongs in comp.os.linux.advocacy.  Follow-ups redirected]

Quote:>Ok, try upgrading a Red Hat box from 4 to 5 while it is locked up
>in a computer room 30 miles from you with no CDROM drive and do
>it over the net without console access.

>I upgraded from debian 1.3 to 2.0 under these conditions with none
>of the libc6 problems that Red Hat has had.

This may be possible with all the RedHat 5.0 RPMS in a directory, and a
perl script like this one:

        http://www.samiam.org/perl/rpm.update

Surrounded by a shell script like this one:

for package in `./rpm.update` ; do
        rpm -h --upgrade $a
done

I've never tried it myself.

Keep in mind that RedHat does have some advantages over Debian:

* Easier install procedure.  RedHat 5.1 is really good about
  autodetecting your NIC and your graphics card.

* RedHat still does security upgrades for their legacy 4.2 systems.

* Commercial presence, which makes Linux more attractive to corporate
  customers and ISVs

* RPM, unlike dpkg, allows you to install a package without all the
  dependency packages installed.

* RPM is easier to use than dpkg.  I recently did an install of Debian 1.3.1,
  SuSE 5.2, Caldera 1.2-Lite, Slackware 3.4, and RedHat 5.1.  Of all these
  distros, I found RedHat had the easiest learning curve, and Debian had
  the steepest learning curve.

I think the reason for the attraction with Debian is becuase of its free
nature.  Unlike many people on this newsgroup, I do not think it is wrong
for people to make a living with Linux.

- Sam

--
Unique Linux information: http://linux-rules.samiam.org/linux/linux_links.html
Flames directed to /dev/null -|- Spam sent here may be posted to n.a.n-a.email

 
 
 

What's the most stable version?

Post by Chris Water » Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> [This belongs in comp.os.linux.advocacy.  Follow-ups redirected]

Followup overridden -- this is a technical discussion of the features
of some Linux distributions, not advocacy.  (At least, that's what I'm
trying to do, though Sam may have been engaging in advocacy.)

Quote:> Keep in mind that RedHat does have some advantages over Debian:
> * Easier install procedure.  RedHat 5.1 is really good about
>   autodetecting your NIC and your graphics card.

Possibly -- all I know is that Debian 1.3 did a better job that RH 4.2
at configuring my graphics card (RH just hung!)  Aside from that, I'd
agree that RH's install is perhaps a trifle easier, but Debian's is a
little more flexible.  E.g. RH's install leaves you with just a root
account.  Debian's not only creates a user account, but offers to
redirect root/postmaster mail to that account for you.  I'd call the
latter much easier in practical terms!

Quote:> * RedHat still does security upgrades for their legacy 4.2 systems.

Which they sort of have to because of all the problems with upgrading
to glibc.  I expect Debian to do the same with 1.3 even after they
release 2.0.

Quote:> * Commercial presence, which makes Linux more attractive to corporate
>   customers and ISVs

A valid argument.  I could point out that this is also a valid
argument for choosing Microsoft, but I *like* RH, and besides, I'm
trying to avoid advocacy, so I won't go there.

Quote:> * RPM, unlike dpkg, allows you to install a package without all the
>   dependency packages installed.

Bzzt, sorry, this is *NOT* unlike dpkg!  See the --force option.

Quote:> * RPM is easier to use than dpkg.

That is *extremely* subjective and debatable.  To install with rpm:
"rpm -i packagename".  To install with dpkg: "dpkg -i packagename".  I
suppose there's one more letter in "dpkg", but I'm not sure that's
enough to really qualify it as being harder to use.  :-)

I think dpkg has a few more options -- so, if you're intimidated by
options, you might conclude that rpm is easier to use.  OTOH, if you
find that you need those options, then rpm might not seem like such a
bargain anymore.

In general, I think that if you *like* having options, you're probably
going to prefer Debian to RH, and if you find options intimidating or
confusing, you'll probably prefer RH.  This is *NOT* the same as
saying that Debian is better because it has more options or that RH is
better because it has fewer!  If I said that, then this *would* be
advocacy.

Quote:> I think the reason for the attraction with Debian is becuase of its free
> nature.

My *personal* attraction for Debian has to do with the fact that it's
easier to use, easier to install, easier to configure, more powerful,
and more flexible.  *FOR ME*.  Of course, to be fair, RH has some
really nice features that I'd like to see in Debian.  And very much
vice versa.  Neither one is a clear winner, but Debian has a slight
edge I*M*AO.

Quote:> Unlike many people on this newsgroup, I do not think it is wrong
> for people to make a living with Linux.

I'm a professional programmer, and I have absolutely NO hesitations
about making a living off of Linux.  I have no qualms about
supporting, buying, using, or writing commercial (or even proprietary)
software.  I chose Debian because it worked better for me, and I liked
the install system and the menu system (especially the menu system!)
better.  And I liked the extra power available in dpkg.  And a lot of
other little reasons.

(Honestly, though, if RH dropped that annoying "AnotherLevel" kludge
and replaced it with Debian's menu system or something similar, I
might actually have to flip a coin to choose between the systems.)

To conclude: use what you like, you can get CDs with several
distributions for not very much money so you can try 'em out.  Don't
expect a definitive answer from anyone else, because most
distributions are close enough in quality that subjective factors will
dominate.  Most of the differences are cosmetic and/or minor, and
it'll mostly come down to a matter of taste.
--
Chris Waters             |


www.dsp.net/xtifr/ (web) |

 
 
 

What's the most stable version?

Post by Navindra Umane » Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:00:00



> * RPM, unlike dpkg, allows you to install a package without all the
>   dependency packages installed.

False.

dpkg --force-depends --install package*deb

Quote:> * RPM is easier to use than dpkg.  I recently did an install of Debian 1.3.1,

dpkg --install package*deb
dpkg --remove package
dpkg --purge package
dpkg --info package*deb
dpkg --list
dpkg --listfiles package
dpkg --search filename

Are you really sure that RPM is any easier than that?

Note, however, that making RPM packages may well be easier than making
.deb packages.  Anyone had experience with this?

Quote:> I think the reason for the attraction with Debian is becuase of its free
> nature.  Unlike many people on this newsgroup, I do not think it is wrong
> for people to make a living with Linux.

No, this is wrong.  I, and others I know, use Debian because we *like*
it.  It's actually very well done and well organized.

Navin

Just ordered 2.0 beta from CheapBytes...

 
 
 

What's the most stable version?

Post by George Bons » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00




Quote:

> This may be possible with all the RedHat 5.0 RPMS in a directory, and a
> perl script like this one:

>    http://www.samiam.org/perl/rpm.update

That is just it, you have to manually download all the RPM's.  Debian does
all that for you ... autoup.sh ... see the web page at www.debian.org.

Quote:> Keep in mind that RedHat does have some advantages over Debian:

> * Easier install procedure.  RedHat 5.1 is really good about
>   autodetecting your NIC and your graphics card.

Red Hat is a nice newbie desktop system, I agree. Debian makes a much better
server.

Quote:

> * RedHat still does security upgrades for their legacy 4.2 systems.

Debian makes it so easy to upgrade and their upgrades are TESTED before
release. There is really no reason to stay with a legacy system because
the system upgrades so painlessly and there aren't as many bugs.

Quote:

> * Commercial presence, which makes Linux more attractive to corporate
>   customers and ISVs

You can purchase Debian too.

Quote:

> * RPM, unlike dpkg, allows you to install a package without all the
>   dependency packages installed.

Wrong. dpkg -i --force depends <package name>

Quote:

> * RPM is easier to use than dpkg.  I recently did an install of Debian 1.3.1,
>   SuSE 5.2, Caldera 1.2-Lite, Slackware 3.4, and RedHat 5.1.  Of all these
>   distros, I found RedHat had the easiest learning curve, and Debian had
>   the steepest learning curve.

Huh,

rpm -i package-name
dpkg -i package name

What is the difference?

I grant you that for a raw newbie, Debian's old package manager dselect is
difficult to learn. Actually, it is not difficult to learn, most newbies
never read the instructions. Anyhow, once you have it installed, Debian is
the easiest distribution to MAINTAIN. Dselect is in the process of
replacement by a new program called apt.

Quote:

> I think the reason for the attraction with Debian is becuase of its free
> nature.  Unlike many people on this newsgroup, I do not think it is wrong
> for people to make a living with Linux.

Red Hat is free too.  Debian just guarantees that everything in Main is
free so that you can extract a subset and create your own custom distribution
without fear. Debian has a Non-Free section and a Contrib section which is
free software that depends on something that is non-free (like KDE).

Debian also maintains their Contrib section, Red Hat does not. Debian
packages come better configured (except X which is left unconfigured
so the local site admin can configure it to the local site's standards).

Red Hat is optimized for the single user desktop, Debian in better
suited for servers and desktops in a large LAN situation where you might
have dozens of workstations.

Debian ALSO has a NON-US section on the overseas sites where you can get
things like ssl, pgp, etc.

--
George Bonser

Microsoft! Which end of the stick do you want today?

 
 
 

What's the most stable version?

Post by George Bons » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00




Quote:

>> Unlike many people on this newsgroup, I do not think it is wrong
>> for people to make a living with Linux.

> I'm a professional programmer, and I have absolutely NO hesitations
> about making a living off of Linux.  I have no qualms about
> supporting, buying, using, or writing commercial (or even proprietary)
> software.  I chose Debian because it worked better for me, and I liked
> the install system and the menu system (especially the menu system!)
> better.  And I liked the extra power available in dpkg.  And a lot of
> other little reasons.

Professional support for Debian is just about ready to be announced. There
is a world-wide organization forming under Jim Pick's leadership and there
is also the debian-consultant mailing list. Debian also has many more
packages than Red Hat.

--
George Bonser

Microsoft! Which end of the stick do you want today?

 
 
 

What's the most stable version?

Post by Timothy Kell » Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>Red Hat is a nice newbie desktop system, I agree. Debian makes a much better
>server.

Other than some of the administrative reasons cited in your post, are
there any technical reasons for this?  Just curious.

--
Tim Kelley


 
 
 

1. Which RedHat Linux Version has 'stable' support for IPv6?

Hi There,
  I need to know the OS version of RedHat Linux which has support of
IPV6. As far as I know some version has 'unstable' support for IPv6.

  I need to test my application for IPv6 TCP/UDP/RAW services,
sending/receiving IPv6 extension headers in the IPv6 data packets etc.

  Thanks in advance.
  Musa

2. Problems with vacation

3. What's the most stable version?

4. Mediavision pack

5. Q: How do I get from the latest stable kernel version to the latest prepatch version ?

6. SWS1.0 problem

7. stable version- version rating

8. dhclient won't run - solved

9. is the WindRiver 4.3 CD set 'stable' or 'current' ?

10. STABLE isn't: kernel won't compile

11. Is 'sz' more stable than PPP ?

12. Hylafax 'faxgetty' spinning on 3.4-STABLE

13. Find stable 'yppasswd' package !