[Wylug-help] Networking Linux PCs

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Frank Shute wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:38:41AM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
> > >
> > > But Slack has always been considered a bit of a hackers system.
> >
> > But doesn't BSD + Debian have the same kind of reputation?
>
> More a `guru' reputation than a `hackers' reputation ie. you don't
> have to hack the system around to get them to work because of their
> stability. BTW, I don't think you need to be a guru to run
> FreeBSD...although it always helps ;)

But you don't have to do that much to a slackware system.  I didn't know
slackware had a reputation for not working out of the box.

> > > The RedHat installer is more complicated than the FreeBSD installer &
> > > because it's got whizzy graphics and the like, it doesn't really make
> > > it any easier to use - newbie or otherwise.
> >
> > I disagree.  Newbie perceived easiness rates a mouse click as easier than
> > right-right-return.
>
> You've got it right in that yes it's the `perceived' easiness of a
> click through menu rather than using cursor keys - I personally don't
> think it makes a damned bit of difference.

But perceived easiness is really important, since at the end of the
install, the newbie thinks that it has been easier.  Anything that makes
it feel like it hasn't been an ordeal is a good thing.

> > What faults are you pointing at with their kernel?
>
> It's fairly far from what you'd pick up from kernel.org, so it's
> really only been tested by RH beta testers.

Only tested by the beta testers + all the RedHat users.

> Well my complaints about KDE & Gnome as they stand are too long to
> mention here ;) .... but again they've been buggered around with by RH
> for the sake of `usability', well to my mind software that's been
> buggered around with tends to end up less usable as it's inevitably
> got a smaller userbase and has ended up having bugs introduced into
> it.

So nothing in particular then?

> > > Compare and contrast the development process of a RedHat system and
> > > FreeBSD or Debian: A few people at RH hack around with kernel and the
> > > system and it receives a not very widespread release as beta then it's
> > > released. But FreeBSD is released as CURRENT (for the keen &
> > > developers), then STABLE (some bugs) and finally RELEASE (rock solid)
> > > and all along that process anybody can track whichever release they
> > > want or even track more than one. Debian does something similar.
> >
> > Then RedHat receives far more users out in the field.  No?
>
> Sure. s/users/bugtesters/  ;)

Yes, so doesn't that mean that RedHat would end up just as table at the
end of the cycle after loads of punters have used it?  You making out
like the process finishes at release for RedHat.

> > > Then compare and contrast apt or ports to RPM and they're in a
> > > different league. The administrative overhead is huge in comparison,
> > > something anybody, let alone a newbie, could well do without. RPM
> > > should be dumped - it's grossly antiquated, inadequate and generally
> > > hellish.
> >
> > I don't entirely understand why the administrative overhead is huge.  If I use
> > what RedHat supply, what problems do I have?
>
> You've got a beta system with hacked kernel and rpms. Upgrading kernel
> or rpms is prone to problems in my experience compared to using
> cvsup/ports/portupgrade. You can't get away for very long with not
> updating kernel/rpms from a functionality and/or security viewpoint.

But are you arguing a benefit of ports or simply arguing that BSD is
more stable because of the development process?  I still don't see what
your complaint with RPM is.  You've not convincing explained why it's so
hard with RedHat to stay up to date.

> It's easy for me to keep my FreeBSD boxes up to date with the latest
> kernel and userland - not that I do, I just fix vulnerabilities - I
> just have to run a cron job in the early hours if I want to.

As it is with RedHat.

> So the FreeBSD way is to incrementally update your box, with RH one
> day you have to bite the bullet and rebuild your system by hand
> essentially and watch most of your configuration get trampled.

Why?

> > I've got a RedHat 8.0 machine in front of me, with all these
> > unstable things you're talking about.  It's not crashed once since I
> > installed it on new untested hardware.  It's fast, it's pretty, it's
> > got almost all of the packages that I want.  If it crashes once a
> > month but is slick, and yours never crashes, I still think
> > RedHat wins newbie points.
>
> It's the administrative overhead that IMO makes it less than newbie
> friendly but I guess there are a lot of people who don't really care
> about keeping their systems up to date.

What is this administrative overhead?

jh

--
"Une belle fille et un demi de Kronenbourg est la cle de tous les secrets de
 l'univers, la solution a toutes nos souffrances, le remede a la condition
 humaine..."
                                                     -- Unknown