22 Jun
2004
22 Jun
'04
8:06 p.m.
Hi all,
I've had a very nice feedback on my previous question, so I'd like to
take the opportunity to ask a question that's been bothering me for some
time now.
I've had some Unix exposure at work with AIX, and I wanted to have Unix
at home to learn more about it. I started with SuSE, which was nice but
too much Windows-like. Gentoo seemed like a geek thing, I found it too
hard to start with. As Gentoo kept refering to FreeBSD, I gave this one
a try, and I liked it very much.
The one thing that annoyed me, though, was the fact that pre-compiled
packages were hard to find, and the general answer was to compile from
source using the ports system. I must agree that the result was always
OK, but at the cost of hours of compilation for KDE for example. My
personal preference would be the other way round: use precompiled
packages, and compile only if they don't work in your specific
configuration.
This leads me to my first question:
(1) Did you find any real advantage to compiling from source, except
that you can tweak the result by using compile options -Dxxxxx?
I then went on to look for something else which did not have this
drawback. Finally, I've decided to give Debian a try, as it appears to
have the best package system around - unless you believe that you should
always compile from source, in which case Gentoo is probably better,
although my understanding is that Debian allows you to compile from
source as well.
Thus, my second question:
(2) Would you agree that Debian is the best distribution if compiling
from source should be a fallback option, and not a must?
I know this one is tricky, but I am also interested in what
distributions you use and for what reason.
Hope you've made it 'till here ;-)
Regards,
-curious PU
22 Jun
22 Jun
8:45 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Hi all,
<snip>
(1) Did you find any real advantage to compiling from source, except
that you can tweak the result by using compile options -Dxxxxx?
Nope
<snip>
(2) Would you agree that Debian is the best distribution if compiling
from source should be a fallback option, and not a must?
Debian is, IMHO just the best distribution around ;-) apt-get rocks,
debian stable is wonderful for servers, testing & unstable perfectly
suit my needs for the daily workstation.
I know this one is tricky, but I am also interested in
what
distributions you use and for what reason.
Debian not only great because of apt-get, the whole philosophy behind
Debian is just biblical ;-)
Hope you've made it 'till here ;-)
Yup, I did ;-)
Friendly,
Bob Hentges
--
http://bob.hentges.lu/
9:09 p.m.
Bob Hentges wrote:
Debian is, IMHO just the best distribution around ;-)
apt-get rocks,
debian stable is wonderful for servers, testing & unstable perfectly
suit my needs for the daily workstation.
Would you suggest using Debian itself, or one of its derivatives?
According to distrowatch, there are at least 92 distributions based upon
Debian.
Debian not only great because of apt-get, the whole
philosophy behind
Debian is just biblical ;-)
FreeBSD is great on that level as well.
Regards,
-pu
9:28 p.m.
I know this one is tricky, but I am also interested in
what
distributions you use and for what reason.
Hope you've made it 'till here ;-)
I would recommend Slackware: http://www.slackware.com
First of all: I am using Slackware since october 1994(!) on the desktop
and on many servers and firewalls, have tried many distros (including
Debian, SuSE, RedHat). I have always comed back to Slackware.
Here are the reasons why:
* Slackware is a stable, fast, complete and resource friendly distro.
* Slackware is uptodate. Every 6 months there is a new official
Slackware release (with downloadable ISOs).
* Slackware-current gets updated every day. You can always upgrade your
current install to the level of Slackware-current by executing the tool
'swaret'. If there is a new KDE version, you can be sure that two days
later, Slackware-current contains the new version.
* There aren't new downloadable ISOs of Slackware-current every day, but
you can download the whole tree with wget and make your own ISOs by
executing a simple command.
* No dependency hell! Slackware install tools, configuration tools and
boot scripts only require the shell. Most tools and utilities are
written in C. You don't need perl or python, TCL/TK, etc. installed. A
main advantage of Linux vs Windows is the fact that under Linux you can
build a dedicated system without the bloat you don't need (good for
dedicated systems like firewalls). Slackware makes this easy (unlike
other distros). Even FreeBSD needs perl. FreeBSD 5 corrected this by
rewiting tools like 'adduser' in shell code. Yast needs perl. The RedHat
tools need python, etc.
* Slackware is the most UNIXish Linux distro around (I have experience
with Solaris, SunOS, AIX, Tru64, HP/UX and *BSD). The init system is an
enhanced BSD style init with support for SYSV init scripts for
compatibility reasons. The only other Linux distro which uses BSD style
init scripts is Gentoo.
* The whole distro (with the installation program) has always been open
source (unlike Yast for example which only recently has been GPL'ed).
* I might not be the easiest distro for users who never touch the
command line. But for users who want to know more about Linux, Slackware
is the way to go. The streamlined boot scripts and configuration files
makes it one of the easiest distros to master. It is also easier to
understand than Debian, although some will say that it is also less
sophisticated than Debian.
* Slackware was one of the first distros ever (only SLS preceded
Slackware). In fact, the first versions of RedHat and SuSE were based on
Slackware.
Here are some links:
Slackware main site:
http://www.slackware.com
Community site:
http://www.userlocal.com
Additional slackware packages:
http://www.linuxpackages.net
Recent discussion in Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/16/1326202&mode=thread&tid…
Patrick Kaell
9:51 p.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
* No dependency hell! Slackware install tools,
configuration tools and
boot scripts only require the shell.
That's astonishing. My understanding was that Slackware does not manage
dependencies among packages, so you have to manage them yourself via the
error messages you get during installation.
Is that incorrect?
* Slackware is the most UNIXish Linux distro around (I
have experience
with Solaris, SunOS, AIX, Tru64, HP/UX and *BSD). The init system is an
enhanced BSD style init with support for SYSV init scripts for
compatibility reasons. The only other Linux distro which uses BSD style
init scripts is Gentoo.
... and I thought that *BSD was more 'unix-like' than any Linux
distribution, because it has been around long before Linux started to
exist ?!
Regards,
-pu
10:43 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Patrick Kaell wrote:
You are right. But in practice this isn't a problem:
1. There aren't many package dependencies under Slackware (most are
simply avoided). Under KDE and Gnome this doesn't work so well. The
simplest way is to install all KDE or Gnome packages.
2. Slackware packages are grouped in sets. In every set you have
required packages. For example, if you install the X Window system, you
have to install set 'x'. In set 'x' you have packages which you
can't
deselect (for example xlib and xfonts). But it is perfectly possible
under Slackware to install ghostview (the GUI) without the ghostscript
(command tool). There is also a special option where you can deselect a
required package of a set if I know what you do.
* No dependency hell! Slackware install tools,
configuration tools and
boot scripts only require the shell.
That's astonishing. My understanding was that Slackware does not manage
dependencies among packages, so you have to manage them yourself via the
error messages you get during installation.
Is that incorrect? ... and I thought that *BSD was more
'unix-like' than any Linux
distribution, because it has been around long before Linux started to
exist ?!
There are two main Unix lines: System V frpm AT&T and BSD. AT&T made the
original system in the late 60's. In the late 70's and 80's several
universities used the source code of AT&T Unix in operation system
classes to teach students. The university of Berkeley did many
modification and released the result as BSD Unix. BSD Unix was sometimes
superior to System V (BSD was the first UNIX with a TCP/IP stack).
SunOS (Sun), NextStep, Ultrix (Digital), MacOS X were BSD based, but
most commercial UNIX systems AIX (IBM), Irix (SGI), Solaris (Sun), HP/UX
(HP) were System V based.
In the late 80's BSD was superior to System V and Sun was BSD based
(SunOS). Because of that AT&T bought many Sun shares and cooperated with
Sun. Sun helped AT&T to improve Sytem V. In the early 90's Sun migrated
all his users from SunOS (BSD) to the new Sun Solaris (System V). Many
people were angry!
BSD and System V were not completely compatible. Both sytems have common
roots as both are based on Unix seventh edition from AT&T. But Unix
seventh edition dates back to 1978. Most extensions from the BSD and
System V lines were not compatible.
Today BSD systems also contain the System V APIs and System V systems
conatin BSD APIs.
Linux is a System V compatible system with many BSD extensions.
There are however important differences between Linux and Unix in the
area of raw devices. In Unix systems (System V & BSD) the filesystem
does the caching. At the Linux side, the filesystems (ext3, vfat,
reiserfs etc.) do not need to care about caching, othe parts of the
kernel are responsible for this.
Patrick Kaell
Regards,
-pu
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
23 Jun
23 Jun
8:41 a.m.
* Slackware is
the most UNIXish Linux distro around (I have experience
with Solaris, SunOS, AIX, Tru64, HP/UX and *BSD). The init system is
an enhanced BSD style init with support for SYSV init scripts for
compatibility reasons. The only other Linux distro which uses BSD
style init scripts is Gentoo.
... and I thought that *BSD was more 'unix-like' than any Linux
distribution, because it has been around long before Linux started to
exist ?!
22 Jun
22 Jun
10:15 p.m.
I've had some Unix exposure at work with AIX, and
I wanted to have Unix
at home to learn more about it.
What about Solaris x86? Sun and AT&T (the creator of UNIX) cooperated in
the early 90's. As a result, Solaris is THE Unix implemention for those
who want to learn a real Unix. Solaris 8 is free (but only as in beer,
not speech). But recently Sun has had the intention to open source it.
AIX is a wonderful and advanced OS. But it isn't original Unix (ODM,
subsytem resource manager etc., printing system, etc). From the source
code AIX is a direct descendant of original Unix. Linux is a
reimplementation of Unix, has no common source code with Unix (ok I know
SCO says otherwise), but in the end Linux is closer to Unix than AIX is.
But IBM has worked hard to make the new AIX 5 closer to Linux and System V.
Remember that Linus Torvalds has used the Solaris documentation as a
guideline to implement the Linux API, because he hadn't access to the
documents of the POSIX standard in the early days.
Patrick Kaell
23 Jun
23 Jun
9:19 a.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
What about Solaris x86? Sun and AT&T (the creator
of UNIX) cooperated in
the early 90's. As a result, Solaris is THE Unix implemention for those
who want to learn a real Unix. Solaris 8 is free (but only as in beer,
not speech). But recently Sun has had the intention to open source it.
Let's face it - i am a *user*, not a geek. My intention is to have a
working computer that allows me to do the basic operations: word
processing, spreadsheets, Internet browsing and emails. I am not looking
for the purest or technically best implementation of an OS, just
something that is stable, fun to use, and as free (beer) as possible.
I am, today, a Windows user, so I have a working PC which allows me to
do what I want. I am tempted by Unix and FreeBSD came pretty close to
convincing me.
But the two things where FreeBSD failed, and that's purely a matter of
personal preference, is:
-1- lack of binary distributions
I am still looking for a good reason to compile everything from source.
Maybe there is one. Until I find it, a binary distribution has the
following advantages:
- saves you plenty of time
- gives you a guarantee that the binary actually work, which may not be
the case if you compile it yourself.
-2- lack of commercial support
I like the idea of Debian, but I wouldn't get religious about it. An OS
should be free, but I am willing to pay for programs if they suit my
needs and if the price is fair (unlike MsOffice, for example). Linux has
been adopted by companies, so the chances to find commercial software
are far better that with FreeBSD.
AIX is a wonderful and advanced OS. But it isn't
original Unix (ODM,
subsytem resource manager etc., printing system, etc). From the source
code AIX is a direct descendant of original Unix.
AIX did not convince me as much as FreeBSD. On our Regatta boxes, it
works very well, but I wouldn't use it at home.
My current (theoretical) preference is Debian, because it is considered
a complete OS and has a good packet management. There is another point
for Debian: as I am working in IT, and as Debian is the base for a high
number of distributions, I hope that it will give me a good basic
understanding for Linux distributions I might have to use at work
(although, generally, SuSE and RH are used there).
Regards,
-pu
9:57 a.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
But the two things where FreeBSD failed, and
that's purely a matter of
personal preference, is:
-1- lack of binary distributions
I am still looking for a good reason to compile everything from source.
Maybe there is one. Until I find it, a binary distribution has the
following advantages:
- saves you plenty of time
- gives you a guarantee that the binary actually work, which may not be
the case if you compile it yourself.
-2- lack of commercial support
I like the idea of Debian, but I wouldn't get religious about it. An OS
should be free, but I am willing to pay for programs if they suit my
needs and if the price is fair (unlike MsOffice, for example). Linux has
been adopted by companies, so the chances to find commercial software
are far better that with FreeBSD.
Ok, I understand. What about Fedora? I see the following advantanges:
* Binary distribution
* Updatable via network with the tool 'yum' but without compiling!
* As it is the successor of RedHat 9.0 you might have the best
commercial support.
* It is a community project. Everone can participate.
* Better than original RedHat because it includes 'yum' (Yellow Dog
Update Manager borrowed from the Yellow Dog distribution), a important
plus for you, if I understand you correctly.
* New official release every 6 month.
* Everything is GPL'ed and the source is available (including the
installer).
Here is an article about Fedora Core 2:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7126
It says:
<quote>
There are at least three ways to update software packages on FC2. The
obvious one is up2date, which notifies you of updated packages by
changing the blue check in the bottom right of the "tray" into a red
exclamation mark. A less obvious, but more powerful method of updating
is through yum. Open a terminal, and type:
$ sudo yum update
[enter your user password]
$ sudo yum upgrade
Voila, your system is up to date. You should also be aware that a port
of Debian's apt is also available for Fedora. One of the first things I
do on a Fedora install is download and install apt.
Download the rpm, and install it with:
$ sudo rpm -Uvh apt-[package-name].rpm
Once it's installed, type:
$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get install synaptic
Synaptic is a GUI frontend for apt that makes installing software a
cinch. Both yum and apt automatically handle dependencies, helping to
eliminate the dreaded "RPM Hell". From what I've read, up2date is slowly
being phased out in favor of yum or apt.
</quote>
AIX did not convince me as much as FreeBSD. On our
Regatta boxes, it
works very well, but I wouldn't use it at home.
You have a Regatta at work. Sounds very nice.
My current (theoretical) preference is Debian, because
it is considered
a complete OS and has a good packet management. There is another point
for Debian: as I am working in IT, and as Debian is the base for a high
number of distributions, I hope that it will give me a good basic
understanding for Linux distributions I might have to use at work
(although, generally, SuSE and RH are used there).
I hope I could help you a bit, by finding you optimal distro.
Patrick Kaell
10:40 a.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Patrick Kaell wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it. It is a fine distro. If you like it, stick
with it. I don't have much Debian experience, but have tried it several
times. It is not the easiest distro to set up and not the most uptodate
(even the unstable branch). It is a matter of taste. I know that many
people on this list like it, and I am sure that they know why. You
already have experience with Debian. You have asked what distros other
people might use und the reasons why. I have taken the opportunity to
talk about distros which haven't got much coverage on this list.
Linux is about choice. Choice is good.
All distros have pluses and minuses. Most distros are good. Only very
few are bad. It is really only a matter of taste.
If you are unsure about the right distro for you to use, you have to try
them all. There's no way around this. Unfortunately people always
recommend their favorite distro to others ;-)
Patrick Kaell
Ok, I understand. What about Fedora? I see the
following advantanges:
As you keep on suggesting other distributions, I need to ask the basic
question: *what's wrong with Debian?*
10:56 a.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
(even the unstable branch). It is a matter of taste. I
know that many
people on this list like it, and I am sure that they know why. You
already have experience with Debian. You have asked what distros other
people might use und the reasons why. I have taken the opportunity to
talk about distros which haven't got much coverage on this list.
Actually, I don't know Debian, I've only decided to give it a try. I am
also sceptical about its not being up to date (the stable branch uses a
2.2 kernel).
If I get good arguments, I could change my mind. I am currently reading
about Slackware.
But I'd certainly like to stick with only one distribution in the end!
If you are unsure about the right distro for you to
use, you have to try
them all. There's no way around this. Unfortunately people always
recommend their favorite distro to others ;-)
Which one is YOUR favorite, then?
-pu
12:02 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Patrick Kaell wrote:
I wouldn't use kernel 2.2 anymore. It doesn't support USB, stateful
packet filtering, iptables, etc. It isn't developed actively anymore.
Even kernel 2.4 only gets a few basic security updates. The Linux world
has shifted to 2.6.
Debian is hard to set up. Slackware is far simpler. But it has no
graphical configuration tools like Fedora or SuSE. It has menu
orientated tools like FreeBSD. The installer looks like FreeBSD's
installer (even the colors are the same). There are menu based config
tools you start at any time:
netconfig (for configuring the network)
pppsetup (for configuring modems)
xwmconfig (for selecting the desktop environment)
liloconfig (for configuring the boot manager)
pkgtool (for managing packages)
I have uploaded the Slackware Book on my site (you can have a look):
http://www.kayoon.net/kaell/slackware-book.zip
(even the unstable branch). It is a matter of
taste. I know that many
people on this list like it, and I am sure that they know why. You
already have experience with Debian. You have asked what distros other
people might use und the reasons why. I have taken the opportunity to
talk about distros which haven't got much coverage on this list.
Actually, I don't know Debian, I've only decided to give it a try. I am
also sceptical about its not being up to date (the stable branch uses a
2.2 kernel). If I get good arguments, I could change my mind. I am
currently reading
about Slackware.
Ok. The boot scripts are very simple, clear and streamlined. Even with
minimal shell knowledge, it is possible to read *and* understand them.
That doesn't mean you have to read them to use the system. It is
possible for a novice to install the system in a half an hour. With
Debian, this is IMHO not possible. But it is not the right distro for
someone who has never used the command line in any way (this also
applies to Debian). For those people, Fedora or SuSE might be better. As
long as the graphical tools work, it is ok. But if there is any problem
which can not be solved with SuSE's graphical interface (which is only a
matter of time) you have to open the command line anyway. If this
happens, Slackware will be far easier than any other distro.
But I'd certainly like to stick with only one
distribution in the end!
I was able to do it (since 1994). Around 1999-2000, I moved to SuSE 6.2
because Slackware did't get updated often anymore (mainly because of the
libc5 - glibc 2 dilemna). After a year this problem was resolved and I
moved back to Slackware (Slackware 7.0 at this time).
At work, we use RedHat. But I converted some systems to Slackware
(mainly the firewall because of security reasons). We use RedHat at
work, because it is officially supported by Oracle. This doesn't mean
Oracle doesn't run on Slackware, but it isn't officially supported (the
same applies to Debian).
Which one is YOUR favorite, then?
Slackware. If have *tried* to like SuSE and Debian, but I didn't like
them. SuSE because of suseconfig (manual changes get ignored by
suseconfig), nonstandard file layout (boot scripts in /sbin/init.d
instead in /etc/rc.d), etc. and Debian because of its awkward setup and
not being uptodate enough. RedHat/Fedora seems to be a good compromise
because it is commercially supported, easy to setup and manual changes
of config files appear in the graphical tools.
Here is a success story about Slackware:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6695
Patrick Kaell
12:24 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
If I get good arguments, I could change my mind. I am
currently reading
about Slackware.
Here are additional articles:
Three Months with Slackware Linux 9.1:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5307
Get to Know Slackware 9.1:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637
Installing Slackware Linux:
http://www.bitbenderforums.com/vb22/showthread.php?postid=311808
A week with Slackware 9.1:
http://www.linuxbeginner.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid…
Dropline Gnome 2.4.x:
http://linux-universe.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1555
Patrick Kaell
6:59 p.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
Here are additional articles:
Three Months with Slackware Linux 9.1:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5307
Any idea when Slackware 10 will be released?
-pu
10:17 a.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
I am still looking for a good reason to compile
everything from source.
Maybe there is one.
If you compile everything from source, you can optimize the binaries for
your specific processor. Thats all. However you won't feel a big speed
advantage by compiling everything. Normally it is sufficient to
recompile the kernel, perhaps the glibc and the X Window system.
Binaries for i686 systems may be faster on a P4 than binaries for i386
or i486 but they are also larger. Larger binaries may slow down your
system because less code fits in the processor's L1 and L2 cache.
There have been many discussions on newsgroups about the question if
source code distros like Gentoo are actually faster (Gentoo people
pretend this). As far as I know there is no evidence for this. Compiling
your kernel for your specific processor may speed things up, compiling
ls or KDE centainly not.
Of course there is also the geek factor by having compiled everything
yourself. But as far as I understand that's not your goal.
Another point is that distros which are supported on many architectures
(Sparc, PowerPC, Alpha, IA64, AMD64, etc.) simply may not have the
resources to provide binary packages for all architectures. Look at
NetBSD. They support 54 platforms. Most packages are only provided in
source form. The i386 is the only platform where you can get precompiled
binaries for all the packages.
Patrick Kaell
2:46 p.m.
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 11:19, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Patrick Kaell wrote:
there is binary package avaliaible for *BSD. Just use pkg_add command.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/packages-using.ht…
What about Solaris x86? Sun and AT&T (the
creator of UNIX)
cooperated in the early 90's. As a result, Solaris is THE Unix
implemention for those who want to learn a real Unix. Solaris 8 is
free (but only as in beer, not speech). But recently Sun has had
the intention to open source it.
Let's face it - i am a *user*, not a geek. My intention is to have a
working computer that allows me to do the basic operations: word
processing, spreadsheets, Internet browsing and emails. I am not
looking for the purest or technically best implementation of an OS,
just something that is stable, fun to use, and as free (beer) as
possible.
I am, today, a Windows user, so I have a working PC which allows me
to do what I want. I am tempted by Unix and FreeBSD came pretty close
to convincing me.
But the two things where FreeBSD failed, and that's purely a matter
of personal preference, is:
-1- lack of binary distributions
I am still looking for a good reason to compile everything from
source. Maybe there is one. Until I find it, a binary distribution
has the following advantages:
- saves you plenty of time
- gives you a guarantee that the binary actually work, which may not
be the case if you compile it yourself. -2- lack of commercial support
I like the idea of Debian, but I wouldn't get religious about it. An
OS should be free, but I am willing to pay for programs if they suit
my needs and if the price is fair (unlike MsOffice, for example).
Linux has been adopted by companies, so the chances to find
commercial software are far better that with FreeBSD.
there is also a emulation layer, for binary compatibility.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu.html
and there is commercial support, :
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html
--
Mickaël Scherer
4:18 p.m.
Michael Scherer wrote:
there is binary package avaliaible for *BSD. Just use
pkg_add command.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/packages-using.ht…
I know that. However, packages are not centralized and not always
available. I tried to find a package for OOO 1.1.1 or 1.1.2, and that
prooved to be impossible, although a big product like OOO *should* be
available as a binary.
In the FreeBSD world, packages are not universally accepted and
available, although there is support for them. "Compile from source" is
the usual answer.
there is also a emulation layer, for binary
compatibility.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu.html
Again, I read the handbook, and BTW also "The complete FreeBSD". Linux
emulation is not complete, and even less for software written for 2.6
kernels. And it always feels like running Win16 programs on OS/2: you
know that you are going to be out of the game one day or another.
and there is commercial support, :
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html
This is commercial support for the OS. What I was trying to say is
things like commercial, or at least non-open source drivers for hardware
and user applications which can complete a lack of open source software.
FreeBSD certainly lacks those.
Regards,
-pu
4:45 p.m.
I started with Slackware in the 94 time frame as well. At that point I could
install a dual boot windows 4 workgroups and a complete linux system
including X on a 1GB hard drive. At the time I had no idea of what I was
doing with the system, but was happy as could be that I didn't have to run
down to the Sun Lab to work on my projects. Unfortunately, that means I
can't speak for Slackware :(
Around1998 I gave Corel Linux a try. It was painfully SLOW on my system
(Pentium 60).
In 2000 I started using SuSE. After 2 months of using it, I deleted my
windows partition and haven't looked back. I very much like SuSE because
things simply work. I only rarely encounter problems with the default
settings, but a solution is usually available in the SuSE Support Database or
on one of their message boards. Simply put, SuSE has very good (free)
support. The problem with SuSE is that if you want to do something your way
instead of SuSE's way, than your nice integrated system starts falling apart.
I think SuSE is a system for people who don't care how it works, just that it
works.
I've tinkered with Mandrake off and on for several years now, but have never
done more than just tinker with it. One of my colleagues at work swears by
it. But he is French, so he may be a bit biased towards a French
distribution :)
I've also built a Linux from Scratch system. Short story: Pain in the ass,
takes a huge amount of time, but you learn a lot.
Last month, I installed Gentoo on my work laptop and now I'm hooked. Portage
is a great packaging system and it is well documented. Contrary to what's
been said, there are binary packages available for selected packages in
Gentoo. Try using the --usepkgonly option with emerge. Large things like
KDE and Gnome generally have something available for them. What I personally
like about Gentoo is that it forces me to learn a bit more about how my linux
system works. Like Slackware, it is updated very quickly and there is a huge
database of packages available. My only gripe with Gentoo is that a
broadband connection is absolutely necessary, otherwise things break on you.
Bottom line: Gentoo if you want to learn a lot about your system and you have
a broadband connection, SuSE if you don't want to tinker with your system
very much.
Mike
5:43 p.m.
Mike Pressel wrote:
The problem with SuSE is that if you want to do
something your way
instead of SuSE's way, than your nice integrated system starts falling apart.
I think SuSE is a system for people who don't care how it works, just that it
works.
I'd like to get it running fast, yes, but as I get more skilled with it,
I'd also like to tweak it. So SuSE is not for me.
Last month, I installed Gentoo on my work laptop and
now I'm hooked. Portage
is a great packaging system and it is well documented. Contrary to what's
been said, there are binary packages available for selected packages in
Gentoo. Try using the --usepkgonly option with emerge. Large things like
KDE and Gnome generally have something available for them. What I personally
like about Gentoo is that it forces me to learn a bit more about how my linux
system works. Like Slackware, it is updated very quickly and there is a huge
database of packages available. My only gripe with Gentoo is that a
broadband connection is absolutely necessary, otherwise things break on you.
I installed Gentoo 2004.0, worked ok. Later, I installed 2004.1 from
scratch, and I had plenty of problems - my network card was no longer
recognized, for example. That put me off.
I've just had a look at the packages, and they do look complete. What do
you usually do: compile from source or use packages?
-pu
24 Jun
24 Jun
3 p.m.
Quoting Patrick Useldinger <pu(a)vo.lu>lu>:
I've just had a look at the packages, and they do
look complete. What do
you usually do: compile from source or use packages?
I have a 28.8 modem at home, so I don't even try to use gentoo there. On my
laptop, I use the prebuilt backages when one is available (from the live CD) and
when not, then from source. There are a few stupid things missing on the live
CD such as FTP and Telnet. BIG OVERSIGHT in my opinion. If you want the latest
and greatest, then source is always the way to go.
Mike
7:57 a.m.
Michael Scherer wrote:
and there is commercial support, :
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html
I like the *BSDs and I also think that they are technically superior to
Linux. But the difference (unlike compared to Windows) between Linux and
*BSD just is too small to justify giving up commercial support.
By commercial support I can give you an example:
At work we use HP DL380 servers from HP. HP provides Linux drivers and
agents for everything (for RedHat's Enterprise distributions). You can
control the temperature of different zones, rotating speed of the fans,
RAID status. There is a curses based tool to configure the RAID. If
there is a problem, it gets logged into syslogd and the agent sends SNMP
traps.
Without the agents installed, I would *not* get noticed when a drive
fails. I would not see a single line in syslogd. OK, there is a red
light on the drive itself which goes on, but the servers aren't all
located on our site!
The industry just has settled on Linux! They may support a second
systems besides Windows (and it is justified because Linux is quite
different to Windows and Linux does many things Windows cannot do), but
they will not support a third system where the benefits are quite marginal.
Many organisations who replace commercial Unix by Linux need Oracle and
DB2 support (emulation just doesn't cut it). They don't just do FTP, WWW
and Mail especially on the large servers.
Don't forget, I have *BSD installed on many machines at home and as a
firewall I run NetBSD on a Sun SparcClassic. But I would not recommend
it at work, where people just have accepted Linux.
Patrick Kaell
25 Jun
25 Jun
2:29 p.m.
Hi all,
This was a really nice debate, so nice that I think it would be worth keeping some key
elements of it. So I aks you all who would be volunteer to write a little article about
his favorite distro, explaining why one should specfically use that one, which we could
then published on the lilux website. What do you think about it ?
Well we could even enlarge the scope of this to specific programs, I'm for isntance
thinking about the KDE / GNOME issue !
Coming back to the debate I'm a fully debian converted, apt really is great, however
I hate dselect ;)
I also iused (tested) other distros :
gentoo : nice but the compilation is a real pain in the ass if you like to have an app up
an runing fast !
redhat, mandrake, & suse : well these arre the commercial ones, and the thing I
don't like tis that one has to wait the whole 6 moths before getting a full upgrade,
in debian and others y oucan have a step-by-step upgrade
caldera & corel : caldera was in fact my first linux distro and corel the second, but
well not much to say, they are past anyway ;)
On the desktop side I'm a GNOME-guy, however tending more and more to fluxbox due to
the strangenesses in gnome 2.6 .
cheers,
pst
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:57:29AM +0200, Patrick Kaell wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
--
Pascal Steichen
pascal.steichen(a)linux.lu
Lilux ASBL
www.lilux.lu
" Linux is like a woman, hard to understand
But very nice once you get under the hood. "
and there is commercial support, :
http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html
I like the *BSDs and I also think that they are technically superior to
Linux. But the difference (unlike compared to Windows) between Linux and
*BSD just is too small to justify giving up commercial support.
By commercial support I can give you an example:
At work we use HP DL380 servers from HP. HP provides Linux drivers and
agents for everything (for RedHat's Enterprise distributions). You can
control the temperature of different zones, rotating speed of the fans,
RAID status. There is a curses based tool to configure the RAID. If
there is a problem, it gets logged into syslogd and the agent sends SNMP
traps.
Without the agents installed, I would *not* get noticed when a drive
fails. I would not see a single line in syslogd. OK, there is a red
light on the drive itself which goes on, but the servers aren't all
located on our site!
The industry just has settled on Linux! They may support a second
systems besides Windows (and it is justified because Linux is quite
different to Windows and Linux does many things Windows cannot do), but
they will not support a third system where the benefits are quite marginal.
Many organisations who replace commercial Unix by Linux need Oracle and
DB2 support (emulation just doesn't cut it). They don't just do FTP, WWW
and Mail especially on the large servers.
Don't forget, I have *BSD installed on many machines at home and as a
firewall I run NetBSD on a Sun SparcClassic. But I would not recommend
it at work, where people just have accepted Linux.
Patrick Kaell
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
4:27 p.m.
Pascal Steichen wrote:
Hi all,
This was a really nice debate, so nice that I think it would be worth keeping some key
elements of it. So I aks you all who would be volunteer to write a little article about
his favorite distro, explaining why one should specfically use that one, which we could
then published on the lilux website. What do you think about it ?
Well we could even enlarge the scope of this to specific programs, I'm for isntance
thinking about the KDE / GNOME issue !
Good idea! I will participate!
Coming back to the debate I'm a fully debian
converted, apt really is great, however I hate dselect ;)
You are right. I associate Debian too much with dselect. I haven't tried
apt-get. dselect gave me a really bad first impression of Debian ;-)
I think that Debian is a good choice. And it has a really large
community behind it.
Patrick Kaell
6:23 p.m.
Pascal Steichen wrote:
I think it would be worth keeping some key elements of
it.
If I may suggest something: rather than creating a verbose text, it
would be easier to create a matrix like this:
------ distro 1 -- distro 2 -- distro 3
func1 Yes No No
func2 32MB 64MB 128MB
func3 manual automatic [...]
so that distributions can be easily compared, and one is able to choose
a distribution according to one's own priorities.
Regards,
-pu
8:52 p.m.
Although it sounds like a great idea, there are too many differences in how
people use their linux distro which has a huge affect on the memory
requirements.... A fire wall has significantly different requirements than a
web server, which are different from a desktop system. Point being, you must
define a purpose for the installation before you can even begin to compare
them.
It would probably be easier (for the end user, not for the poor administrator
who has to put the DB together) to make something that lists the user's
requirements and let's them search by different criteria. Off the top of my
head I can see something like:
What do you want to do with your system?
a> server
b> workstation
c> firewall
d> router
(user selects option a)
What type of a user are you?
a> Experimenter: dissect everything to see how it works. Will search high
and low to discover the true meaning of life.
b> Casually Curious: Willing to search for a short time to find an answer but
not all day.
c> End User: I turn it on and it works-- End of story!
And so on, until the user is presented with a reasonably small number of
distributions to choose from. Keep in mind though, that I think the whole
distribution argument is ridiculous. You need to pick something that you
like because it fits YOUR needs and that YOU are happy with. I've gone
through a ton of different distributions, but in the end I use SuSE because I
like YAST and I don't have broadband at the house.
Mike
On Friday 25 June 2004 20:23, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Pascal Steichen wrote:
I think it would be worth keeping some key
elements of it.
If I may suggest something: rather than creating a verbose text, it
would be easier to create a matrix like this:
------ distro 1 -- distro 2 -- distro 3
func1 Yes No No
func2 32MB 64MB 128MB
func3 manual automatic [...]
so that distributions can be easily compared, and one is able to choose
a distribution according to one's own priorities.
Regards,
-pu
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
27 Jun
27 Jun
12:57 p.m.
Mike Pressel wrote:
Although it sounds like a great idea, there are too
many differences in how
people use their linux distro which has a huge affect on the memory
requirements.... A fire wall has significantly different requirements than a
web server, which are different from a desktop system. Point being, you must
define a purpose for the installation before you can even begin to compare
them.
So we might suggest one distribution per "case" (type of user, type of
usage).
Keep in mind though, that I think the whole
distribution argument is ridiculous. You need to pick something that you
like because it fits YOUR needs and that YOU are happy with. I've gone
through a ton of different distributions, but in the end I use SuSE because I
like YAST and I don't have broadband at the house.
I don't think it is ridiculous, and the fact that you have to go through
<quote> tons </quote> of different installations until you find what
you like is in my opinion a major problem to get Linux more popular. I
know, it is already popular - but a lot of my friends have a
distribution installed, but don't really use it. They just carry on
using Windows.
-pu
26 Jun
26 Jun
10:30 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:23:28PM +0200, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Pascal Steichen wrote:
Yes, but this is very close to what one can find on distrowatch, I was thinking about a
more personnel thing, with experiences etc. For instance the like the stuff about
slackware, after reading it I will really give it a try again.
ciao,
pst
I think it would be worth keeping some key
elements of it.
If I may suggest something: rather than creating a verbose text, it
would be easier to create a matrix like this:
------ distro 1 -- distro 2 -- distro 3
func1 Yes No No
func2 32MB 64MB 128MB
func3 manual automatic [...]
so that distributions can be easily compared, and one is able to choose
a distribution according to one's own priorities.
Regards,
-pu
--
Pascal Steichen
pascal.steichen(a)linux.lu
Lilux ASBL
www.lilux.lu
" Linux is like a woman, hard to understand
But very nice once you get under the hood. "
4:38 p.m.
Pascal Steichen wrote:
Yes, but this is very close to what one can find on
distrowatch,
I didn't find a comparative matrix on distrowatch, that is what is
missing IMHO from this excellent site.
Honestly, choosing a distribution is a pain. We could even go further
and suggest a distribution for each "type" of person, i.e. SuSE for
people who want to use Linux like Windows, Gentoo for the freaks ...
These things would be backed up and explained by the comparison table.
I was thinking about a more personnel thing, with
experiences etc.
We could do both: a matrix to help you choose, and then for the
distributions you like, you go on reading the detailled experiences to
verify that this distro is really for you.
For instance the like the stuff about slackware, after
reading it I will really give it a try again.
Me too. I'm expecting the CDs next Tuesday ;-)
Back to the subject - there would be 3 parts:
1- the suggested distribution per type of user
2- the comparison table, with a more detailled explanations why
distribution x is good for type y
3- the reports from people who really use the various distributions.
Just my own €0,02.
-pu
27 Jun
27 Jun
2:04 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:38:15PM +0200, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Pascal Steichen wrote:
Oh OK, so let's go for it ;)
Yes, but this is very close to what one can find
on distrowatch,
I didn't find a comparative matrix on distrowatch, that is what is
missing IMHO from this excellent site.
Honestly, choosing a distribution is a pain. We could even go further
and suggest a distribution for each "type" of person, i.e. SuSE for
people who want to use Linux like Windows, Gentoo for the freaks ...
These things would be backed up and explained by the comparison table.
Yes, that sounds nice ! I did set up a page on our wiki about this :
http://www.linux.lu/wiki/index.php/DistroMatrix feel free to add your ideas and/or start
filling it up with content (to edit on the wiki you first need to sign in, on the bottom
right corner, this is imply done with a valid WikiWord, most of us use ther names like
PascalSteichen for instance, that both capitals are important ;))
pst
I was thinking about a more personnel thing, with
experiences etc.
We could do both: a matrix to help you choose, and then for the
distributions you like, you go on reading the detailled experiences to
verify that this distro is really for you.
For instance the like the stuff about slackware,
after reading it I will
really give it a try again.
Me too. I'm expecting the CDs next Tuesday ;-)
Back to the subject - there would be 3 parts:
1- the suggested distribution per type of user
2- the comparison table, with a more detailled explanations why
distribution x is good for type y
3- the reports from people who really use the various distributions.
Just my own ?0,02.
-pu
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
--
Pascal Steichen
pascal.steichen(a)linux.lu
Lilux ASBL
www.lilux.lu
" Linux is like a woman, hard to understand
But very nice once you get under the hood. "
7265
days inactive
7270
days old
30 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Bob Hentges -
Michael Scherer -
Mike Pressel -
Pascal Steichen -
Patrick Kaell -
Patrick Useldinger