>>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.
>Huh? What bugs are these? I suspect that any bugs have been addressed in
>the updates provided on their web page and ftp site.
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.
Quote:>When you throw out bogus info like this you're getting close to slander
>of the product.
I have thrown out no bogus info. It is just that when compared to Debian or
FreeBSD, RedHat is rather buggy. It is when people seem to think that one
distribution or OS is "always" best that you lose your sense of reality...
I never said that Debian or FreeBSD is always best. I pointed out strenghts
and weaknesses in each of the distributions I compared. Debian is rather
lacking in documentation. RedHat is rather lacking in security.
>>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.
I never accused anyone of theft. I never said that RedHat did anything
wrong either. I was simply stating a fact.
Quote:>It's nice that you're loyal to Debian, but smearing another product is not
>a good way of showing it.
I am not loyal to any particular OS or distribution. When I find something
that is better for me, I'll move to it. This can be readily seen in my
history -- DOS/WIN, then OS/2, then FreeBSD, then Linux. Each time I made a
change because I saw that the OS I was changing to would be better for me.
That does not mean that the OS I currently run, Debian, is best for
everyone. Nor does it mean that I will never switch to something else. And
it certainly doesn't mean that I am unable to point out faults of Debian.
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
John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming | From the database of the Furtune program: