> [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
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
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
Quote:> I think the reason for the attraction with Debian is becuase of its free
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
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) |