Very Computer

Thanks,
Everyone

However, I like having a system with a decent package manager so I can keep
track of libraries and other software.  Most distributions, excluding
Slackware, have that.

Dave Cook

   I started with, and stayed with the "debian/gnu" distribution.  It
provides a very nice package manager, and the very powerful
"apt-get" command to install new SW.  I find that being a
programmer, I'm always checking out new things, and I can
do so without the hassle(s) of researching all the required
libraries and other packages I need.

And, from a programer's point of view, everything in the main
Debian/GNU distribution comes with sources.

A linux for the GNU millenium,

John Miskinis

Thomas
--
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- Thomas Zajic  <thomasDOTzajicATtelewebDOTat>  Linux-2.0.38/slrn-0.9.5.7 -
-  "It is not easy to cut through a human head with a hacksaw."  (M. C.)  -
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

my work revolves around VB, Access, SQL Server,
the Baan Enterprise System, etc.

how the hell am i gunna get linux to replace all that?
no i havent thrown in the towel.
and i no in my heart that open source is way to fly.
linux and GNU got a hard row to hoe
to take a real piece of the action.
dex hobbs

disadvantages come from the fact that you're not compiling it yourself,
so you don't have full control over what features may or maynot be
compiled in, if there is a selection of options.  plus library conflicts
may occur if there was just the right change made between versions.
personally I only RPM(I use redhat) things that are not major
components, oh and X seems to run fine through packages.  but things
like QMail or MySQL, or PostgreSQL, and especially the kernel, I still
don't trust from an RPM, don't know why, just the way it is

Quote:> my work revolves around VB, Access, SQL Server,
> the Baan Enterprise System, etc.

: okay, i'll bite.

I haven't see any tooth in following aruments.

: what are the advantages and disadvantages of a package manager.
: i run slackware and i never missed the package manager yet.
: but truthfully linux still remains a hobby in my life.

That's why you think so. If Linux would be your job, and you have ten
or hundred computers to administer, you'll love package managers.
I have only four (including my notebook), but that's enough.

: my work revolves around VB, Access, SQL Server,

Perl, Apache, Tcl/Tk, Oracle. I've once tried to replace Oracle in one
of my project by MS SQL and find out that it have almost no stored
procedures and triggers compared with Oracle.

: the Baan Enterprise System, etc.

Don't know what it is, but isn't it simular to SAP?

: how the hell am i gunna get linux to replace all that?
: no i havent thrown in the towel.
: and i no in my heart that open source is way to fly.
: linux and GNU got a hard row to hoe

And most problem is that people is blinded with Microsoft advertsments
and don't know that "There is more than one way to do it" (c) Larry
Wall. Ones who are patient enough to learn something before starting to
implement what they need, already have found out that Unix-based
solutions are more robust, more scalable and so on. Linux makes
Unix-based solutions also cheaper.

--
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
        - Linus Torvalds about the superiority of Linux on the Amterdam Linux Symposium

Package managers add a certain degree of complexity, but, by adding
that complexity, allow you to cope more readily with scaling up to
a Whole Lot Of Systems.

Similar things can be accomplished using various such tools:
- Stow
- NSBD
- BSD Ports
- cfengine
- RPM
- dpkg
are all potentially usable to, in different ways, "solve" the software
distribution "problem."

The degree to which they can cope with multifarious issues like:
  - versioning
  - multiple CPU architectures
varies, which is why all of them coexist.

Quote:>: my work revolves around VB, Access, SQL Server,

>Perl, Apache, Tcl/Tk, Oracle. I've once tried to replace Oracle in one
>of my project by MS SQL and find out that it have almost no stored
>procedures and triggers compared with Oracle.

Quote:>: the Baan Enterprise System, etc.

>Don't know what it is, but isn't it simular to SAP?

: Don't look to MySQL then; it utterly *lacks* these things.  But is,
: nonetheless, quite useful for those domains that fit with its
: architecture.

Don't tell it me ;-)
I'm routinely posting in various newsgroups answers to newbies
questions, saying
"If you want a real _Database_, PostgreSQL is only viable OpenSource
choice. But consider, do you really need real database. May be you'll
just need fast searching tool for structured data which seldom change.
In this case mySQL can be similier and faster"

--