Re: [aclug-L] Flame bait... (distribution question)

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for writing.  This is a question that comes up frequently, and
it's great to discuss it.  Then I can cop out and point people to the
archives when it comes up again later :-)

A distribution is a fairly personal decision, depending a lot on what
your particular needs and preferences are.  Before I address your
message, I want to point out what I believe for distributions:

Slackware: Good for people that want something small.
Debian: Good for people that value stability and solidness.  Good
        for people that know Unix/Linux already, or that
        really value Free Software.
RedHat: Good for people without a lot of Linux/Unix experience.
        Good for people that prefer a configuration interface
        reminscent of the more familiar (eg, Windows).

"Greg House" <ghouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I tried several of them when I was first getting started and the one that
> ended up staying on my machine was Slackware.  It seemed fairly intuitive

Slackware is the reason that FreeBSD was the first Unix on my PC :-)

> for me, so I kept it.  Since then I've set up a couple of RedHat systems,
> and now I'm working on a Debian system.  What I'm finding is that almost
> everything in terms of really current stuff only comes in tarballs and rpms.

Incorrect, but hey :-)

> For example, I wanted the lasted version of XFree86, no deb files available
> for it (except some experimental builds a Debian developer made, which took
> awhile to locate).  I wanted the new Gnome 1.0...rpms...no debs.
> Enlightenment?  NO debs (well, actually debian.org had them in the slink
> directories, but they weren't on enlightenment.org)
> 
> Are all you Debian users 6 months behind on stuff (the last frozen release)?

Debian's emphasis is on stability.  This often means that Debian
doesn't have the absolute latest software in its release.  On the
other hand, you know that Debian is going to *WORK*.  RedHat 5.0, and
to a lesser extent 5.1, show you what happens when you place the
emphasis on the other side.  For instance, RedHat 5.0 (and I believe
5.1 too, but not sure) had seriously broken libc5 compatibility.  5.1
had some nasty security holes.

It's all a matter of trade-offs.  I do recommend RedHat for people new 
to Linux because of its easier configuration and install.  I recommend 
Debian for people familiar with Unix (or especially Linux).

> Are you getting source for these things and compiling them yourself?  Are
> you running development versions of Debian (slink (until today), potato)?

I am, but I suspect that as a Debian developer, I'm a special case :-)

> It just seems like when there's a package manager that you'll eventually end
> up shooting yourself in the foot if you have to subvert it by installing the
> stuff that's not packaged in your package system of choice.  It also appears

Were you aware of the "alien" tool that lets you convert RPMs to DEBs?

> that the only packages people are doing of really up to the minute stuff are
> rpm packages. I like the concept of Debian.org (totally free), but I'm
> seriously thinking about going back to RedHat because of the availability of
> current packages.  Slackware'll keep track of the tarball installations for
> you, so that might be an option too.

Well, if having bleeding-edge software is more important than
stability for you (as it is for some), then Debian may not be the best 
distribution for you.  Or, you may prefer to track the development
tree.  You'll see a lot of exciting things happening there.  First
with glibc support in hamm development tree, for instance, and we're
just days away from glibc2.1 support to be integrated into the potato
tree for Debian 3.0.

As for the RPMs about which you speak, these are third-party RPMs not
guaranteed to be well-integrated or even work with any particular
distribution.  Debian itself supports over 2500 .debs in its latest
release, vs. about 600 or so in RedHat 5.2.  In other words, Debian
directly supports more software than RedHat -- you'll find more
software that is integrated into the system in Debian than RedHat.
A full Debian mirror is now pushing 10 GB in size.

If there is a package that you want for which the debian version is
obsolete, I would suggest that you write to
packagename@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- it will go the Debian maintainer of 
the package.  Sometimes there are valid reasons for doing this.  For
instance, some programs have bugs that are caught by Debian maintainer 
testing before release.  Sometimes, it would be possible to release a
package but it would not be well-integrated into the system, so there
may be a delay while they do it the "right" way.  For instance, window 
managers in Debian support the Debian "menu" system, in which your
menus automatically reflect the software installed on your system.

Most programs these days use GNU autoconf, and will compile and
install themselves in /usr/local, which is a place that Debian
reserves for you for just that purpose.

As for the reasons I use Debian myself, there are three.

1. The most important: the commitment to free software.  I am upset by
   RedHat including non-free and even closed-source software on their
   CDs.  Caldera is even worse in this regard.

2. The package manager and development system -- has several
   advantages over RPM.

3. Large development community, bug-tracking system, and quality
   commitment.  When Debian is released, you know it is solid.

That said, Debian is weak for:

1. Ease of install and configuration.  RedHat's control panels
   are great here -- when they work :-)

Well, that's about it, but it's a biggie, and covers things like
hardware autodetection (RedHat does it better for X and sound),
networking configuration, etc.

---
This is the Air Capital Linux Users Group discussion list.  If you
want to unsubscribe, send the word "unsubscribe" to
aclug-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx.  If you want to post to the list, send your
message to aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx.