Very Computer

All,

  I've been considering the Linux alternative.  However what confuses
me is the HUGE numbers of various LINUX clones/competitors/whatever.  
What would really be helpfull is some comments on just what exactly the
difference between the various LINUX distributions.  I'm not looking for
advocacy (even though this is an advocacy group) I'm looking for basic
facts about the versions and some suggestions.  I've tried looking
thru the various WWW sites, and the marketing gets in the way too much
for me as the newbie to make a decent decision.

  If it helps, I'm looking into LINUX to develop a WWW based database
application, that will be accessed thru a standard browser.

Many thanks,

Dave

Chris Beamis

OK.  I've never used Yggdrasil or Caldera, so I can't comment on those.
I'll comment on RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Slackware Linux, and
FreeBSD.  (FreeBSD is a whole different free operating system.)

RedHat Linux: If you can get past the first stages of installation,
installation and maintenance is easy.  Probably easiest of all these.  But
RedHat is plagued by bugs and doesn't make a good server.

Debian: The only non-commercial Linux distribution available.  Debian
pioneered the concept of package management and is still the best in that
area.  It features "drop-in" upgrades (you don't even have to reboot to
upgrade the OS in some circumstances).  When you delete a program, it will
automatically delete any files it may have left around.  It handles
dependencies (one program that depends on another), which incidentally is a
feature that RedHat "lifted" from Debian.  It also stays very current with
software.  Installation is a breeze.  On the downside, documentation is at
times sparse for the Debian system itself (although docs for included
applications are included).

Slackware: Installation is a pain.  Package system is very poor.  Installs
things to strange places and is buggy.  In short, avoid it.

FreeBSD: FreeBSD is the ideal server OS just as Linux is the ideal
workstation OS.  FreeBSD is designed from a conservative point of view --
that is, stability is emphasized over features.  In Linux, features are
emphasized over stability.  This means that FreeBSD will be more solid than
Linux, but OTOH, FreeBSD will not have as current features as Linux and its
hardware support is more sparse.   FreeBSD is also more secure than Linux.
But don't try running something like RealAudio on FreeBSD -- its audio
support isn't current enough.  And it doesn't have decent DOS emulation.
FreeBSD is rock solid -- the most solid OS I've ever seen.  But it doesn't
have the features of Linux.  For a public server, I would reccommend FreeBSD
but for development, you may want to use Linux.

If you are going to use Linux, I would reccommend Debian or RedHat.

Here are some helpful URLs:

www.redhat.com
www.debian.org
www.freebsd.org
www.linux.org

(I don't know the URL for slackware, sorry.)

Quote:

>All,

>  I've been considering the Linux alternative.  However what confuses
>me is the HUGE numbers of various LINUX clones/competitors/whatever.  
>What would really be helpfull is some comments on just what exactly the
>difference between the various LINUX distributions.  I'm not looking for
>advocacy (even though this is an advocacy group) I'm looking for basic
>facts about the versions and some suggestions.  I've tried looking
>thru the various WWW sites, and the marketing gets in the way too much
>for me as the newbie to make a decent decision.

>  If it helps, I'm looking into LINUX to develop a WWW based database
>application, that will be accessed thru a standard browser.

>Many thanks,

>Dave

: >
: >  If it helps, I'm looking into LINUX to develop a WWW based database
: >application, that will be accessed thru a standard browser.

: I think Debian will be your best bet.  It has more development tools for
: WWW than Red Hat (in fact Debian now has nearly twice as many packages as
: Red Hat and many of them come from Web developers who use Debian for their
: businesses like myself).  Red Hat would also solve your problem, but you
: would need to compile more software on your own (and you would have to try
: to find that software too).  Which isn't hard but can be time consuming.
: Debian's file layout for web software is in flux right now.  A standard
: has been proposed, but not all packages follow the new standard yet :(

: As I see it, Debian is best for small businesses.  Red Hat (or Caldera)
: is better if you are trying to put Linux on the desktop in front of
: some suits (they at least tacitly offer some form of "corporate seal
: of approval").

: --
: Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Nothin But Net System Engineering

: http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
: ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
: "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

Chris,

  Thank you very much for your responce.  This follows closely the information
I've been getting from other Linux enthusiasts.

  I've narrowed it down to Debian or RedHat, and I suspect it will be
Debian.  I've heard both use RPM (?) to distrubute software in easy to
handle packages.  Not that I don't mind digging around installing software,
but this packet management makes things look really easy to control.

Thanks again,

Dave

: OK.  I've never used Yggdrasil or Caldera, so I can't comment on those.
: I'll comment on RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Slackware Linux, and
: FreeBSD.  (FreeBSD is a whole different free operating system.)

: RedHat Linux: If you can get past the first stages of installation,
: installation and maintenance is easy.  Probably easiest of all these.  But
: RedHat is plagued by bugs and doesn't make a good server.

  I've heard the installation and documentation for this version 4.0
is especially nice.  Plus the software package management thinig that
Debian and this share.

: Debian: The only non-commercial Linux distribution available.  Debian
: pioneered the concept of package management and is still the best in that
: area.  It features "drop-in" upgrades (you don't even have to reboot to
: upgrade the OS in some circumstances).  When you delete a program, it will
: automatically delete any files it may have left around.  It handles
: dependencies (one program that depends on another), which incidentally is a
: feature that RedHat "lifted" from Debian.  It also stays very current with
: software.  Installation is a breeze.  On the downside, documentation is at
: times sparse for the Debian system itself (although docs for included
: applications are included).

  After everything I've been reading, I suspect that i will go with the Debian
version.  I've heard many good things about it.

: Slackware: Installation is a pain.  Package system is very poor.  Installs
: things to strange places and is buggy.  In short, avoid it.

  I've gotten this impression as well from the 10 or so people responding
to my inquiery.  That if you are a good Hacker, Slackware is a adecent
choice.  I don't mind hackinig from time to time, but definiatly don't want
to have to do this as par for the course.

: FreeBSD: FreeBSD is the ideal server OS just as Linux is the ideal
<snip>

  I've seen mentioin of FreeBSD b4, but I think I'll be doing good to
digest linux and get development started.  I will keep FreeBSD in mind
if I find things that Linux can't handle.

: If you are going to use Linux, I would reccommend Debian or RedHat.

  i belive it will be Debian.  Thank you for your help and suggestions.

Thank you again,

Dave

Quote:>RedHat Linux: If you can get past the first stages of installation,
>installation and maintenance is easy.  Probably easiest of all these.  But
>RedHat is plagued by bugs and doesn't make a good server.

http://www.redhat.com/support/docs/rhl/rh40-errata-general.html

Redhat makes as good a server enviroment as any other Linux.

When you throw out bogus info like this you're getting close to slander
of the product.

Quote:>dependencies (one program that depends on another), which incidentally is a
>feature that RedHat "lifted" from Debian.  

It's nice that you're loyal to Debian, but smearing another product is not
a good way of showing it.

Dave Cook

As I see it, Debian is best for small businesses.  Red Hat (or Caldera)
is better if you are trying to put Linux on the desktop in front of
some suits (they at least tacitly offer some form of "corporate seal
of approval").

--
Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Nothin But Net System Engineering

http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

In RedHat's favor, it has a unique X-based configurator.  This makes it easy
for people new to Linux to use.  However, this is a mixed blessing, as if
you can't get X up, you're kinda stuck because you will have no idea of
where everything is located...

Quote:>  After everything I've been reading, I suspect that i will go with the Debian
>version.  I've heard many good things about it.

>: Slackware: Installation is a pain.  Package system is very poor.  Installs
>: things to strange places and is buggy.  In short, avoid it.

>: FreeBSD: FreeBSD is the ideal server OS just as Linux is the ideal
><snip>

>  I've seen mentioin of FreeBSD b4, but I think I'll be doing good to
>digest linux and get development started.  I will keep FreeBSD in mind
>if I find things that Linux can't handle.

Quote:>: If you are going to use Linux, I would reccommend Debian or RedHat.
>  i belive it will be Debian.  Thank you for your help and suggestions.

--
John Goerzen          | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming    | From the database of the Furtune program:

Quote:>When you throw out bogus info like this you're getting close to slander
>of the product.

Quote:>>dependencies (one program that depends on another), which incidentally is a
>>feature that RedHat "lifted" from Debian.  

>Sure, Redhat was probably "inspired" by Debian.  After all, this is the
>whole idea of a free software community.  But Redhat's dependency scheme
>is totally different from Debian's.  Saying they "lifted" it from Debian
>sounds like you're accusing them of theft.

Quote:>It's nice that you're loyal to Debian, but smearing another product is not
>a good way of showing it.

I was simply pointing out a fact.  Debian pioneered the package system
concept that is used in Debian and RedHat, and Debian's package system is
currently the most advanced available.  That does not necessarily mean that
Debian is the best distribution for everybody.  Debian's documentation is
somewhat sparse, so if you are a beginning sysadmin, Debian might not be the
system for you.  Debian doesn't have RedHat's X-based configuration
mechanism (this can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it, I
guess.) Debian is more bug-free than RedHat.  FreeBSD is more bug-free than
Debian.  But I'm not using FreeBSD right now.  Why?  Because Linux had more
features that I need for a home workstation.  If I were running a large
server, I would be running FreeBSD on it.  If I were installing Linux on a
workstation for somebody that is not familiar with it (and there wouldn't be
a person familiar with Linux around), I'd put RedHat on it.  If they were
going to be installing it themselves, I'd reccommend Debian instead.  I
cannot make up the choice of what OS/distribution to use for other people.
In my message, I tried to highlight the most apparent strengths and
weaknesses of the different distributions.  This will enable a user to make
an educated decision for themselves, and will increase the likelihood that
they will be pleased with their choice.

I state in my sig that I am running Debian.  But that does not mean that I
think that Debian is always the best.  Debian has areas in which it excells
(package management, etc) but also areas in which it lags behind
(documentation).

--
John Goerzen          | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming    | From the database of the Furtune program:

Quote:>  Thank you very much for your responce.  This follows closely the information
>I've been getting from other Linux enthusiasts.

>  I've narrowed it down to Debian or RedHat, and I suspect it will be
>Debian.  I've heard both use RPM (?) to distrubute software in easy to
>handle packages.  Not that I don't mind digging around installing software,
>but this packet management makes things look really easy to control.

--
John Goerzen          | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming    | From the database of the Furtune program:

Jim

Quote:>Actually, Linux uses its own package format.  But is does have a capability
>called "alien support" that will let it "adopt" RPMs as its own and
>integrate them into Debian's package system.

--
John Goerzen          | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming    | From the database of the Furtune program:

  Thank you much for your responce.  I'm going to go the Debian way.  
Everyone who uses it raves about it.  The only other one I've seen
mentioned as a viable alternative to Deian was RedHat.  But from what
I've been gettinig from the Linux enthusiasts, Debian will fit what I am
looking to do better than RedHat.

Thank you once again,

Dave

Hmm..the "Bogus" distribution?  Was that supposed to be a joke or are you
serious?  I've never heard of that one...  Please explain...  Thanks.

Quote:>Well gee... Let's see.  I have a friend that upgraded to RedHat 4.0 and it
>suddenly broke his server programs.  There are places where the permissions
>on the directory are rather wrong.

Just for the record, RPM also borrowed many ideas from the PMS packaging
system used in the Bogus distribution long ago. That's one of the best
things about free software -- free ideas.

Erik

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|       I told you I'm not very bright -- Sugar in "Some Like It Hot"         |
|      "RPM is the greatest thing since swap-space" - Bryan C. Andregg
|                                                                             |