[Sussex] Newbie to the list

[Steve Dobson]

Hi Matt

On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:41:01PM +0100, Matt Taylor wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Hi Steve
> 
> On Saturday 02 August 2003 15:01, Steve Dobson wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:31:57PM +0100, Matt Taylor wrote:
> > > > > We now use Gentoo for almost everything at work, from the lowly print
> > > > > server up to web and database/transaction servers for the ecommerce
> > > > > sites we build and host.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever rocks your boat.  I would never have though of Gentoo in a
> > > > production environment, but if it works for you then go for it.
> > >
> > > I've had several people say that to me. I'm not sure why it matters.
> >
> > For me it is a question of testing.  Gentoo prides itself on being close
> > to the cutting edge.  The closer you are the more chance of there is of a
> > bug raising its head.
> 
> I would certainly agree that Debian's testing policy stands out above the 
> crowd. I agree that newer software obviously has a greater risk of bugs. The 
> packages that we do install are well tested upstream as you mention. My 
> policy has always been 'the most reliable systems are the simplest systems'. 

A policy that I agree with.  I have been using the K.I.S.S. model for
a while now (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

<snip ps listing>
> ignoring mission specific apps. When the system has so few components I think 
> that distro specific differences are almost non existant. Can you guess from 
> the output above what distro that machine is running? 

As you say it was running so little who could tell.

> Obviously I'm only talking about servers. Desktop machines are a completely 
> different arena. We have a few OSX G4 machines at work and frankly I think 
> that any linux based desktop solution has got a lot of competition there. Now 
> there is a system that 'just works'. I've yet to see any default 30 minute 
> install of a linux distro be as functional as OSX. 

So Apple put a lot of work in getting their systems to work, so do Microsoft
and every commercial OS.  I like what I've seen form Apple - if nothing else
it shows that the old argument that one could not make *nix user friendly to
admin false.  Whether one should make a distro easy to non-computer people
is a different question.

I guess as a Gentoo user you already know that Gentoo 1.4 is going to have
a binary distribution methods as well as the source one (I only found out 
because Geoff told me).  This raises the question in my mind that Gentoo
maybe trying to do to much.  Trying to be all things to all people.  If
that is the case I think Gentoo will be the poorer for it.

On Friday I was talking with a mate at work about Linux.  He's from the
AS400 camp.  He already knew that IBM had Linux running on the AS400 and
it's top flight servers.  He was blown away with how small a platform it
will also run in (I told him I had a little embedded i586 board with 32Megs
of memory and 32Megs of flash disk).

Which sort of brings me to my point.  There are so many things one can do
with Linux (from the likes of IBM on the multi-image servers, to Gentoo and
Debian to Familiar) that each distro should decided on its goals and stick
to them.

> I tried the latest mandrake on a workmates laptop the other week. Pretty 
> impressive and slick. Although as soon as I wanted to install a Java vm 
> things got more difficult. Anyway, I think linux is getting there and will 
> get there soon. Interesting that OSX doesn't have a native packaging solution 
> in the same vein as ports/portage/dpkg (or is that DarwinPorts?)

I agree, Linux is getting close to having a very good desktop, but I do think
it is there yet.  I read an article last week clamming that Linux was now starting
to be installed on the desktop in small number just like it was in servers five
or so years ago.  If the tread is there then Linux on the desktop will come.  I
don't think it will take that long.  For starts Linux has already proved itself,
but there are also some big money behind the desktop projects.  Sun and Gnome
for example - I'm running it on my Solaris box at work.

> I can understand the time taken by doing a emerge -up world (quite possibly a 
> whole weekend on a old machine, glibc does take a while :) would be enough to 
> put a lot of people off. You could be forgiven for asking the point of such a 
> thing.

But the machine I was saw doing it was a mother of a home system.  Dell had
to get special US Government approval to ship Geoff his super-computer class
system.  To give Geoff's systems it's dues it was doing a full build.  I don't
know the Gentoo term for it.  But it still took all weekend.  I've done major
upgrades on my old laptops and an 56K (as if I ever get that connection rate)
modem in less than 12 hours.

>        However, I think that as machines get faster it'll become a non-issue. 
> I would love to see the day when people don't bother distributing binaries 
> and there is a source packaging/building system as well known/used as the gnu 
> tools (like automake/autoconf). Efforts such as Metapkg (http://metapkg.org/) 
> just go to emphasise the point that the kernel/os and the arch aren't 
> relevant to the packaging system overall.

But the big market for Linux these days is consumer electronics.  In that market
every pound save is a five pounds of he sale price, and here prices is a high
factor.  Binary upgrade make more sense here.  We maybe more interested in 
desk side computer systems but that's not where the big market is going to be.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20030802/c2923f03/attachment.pgp