[Wylug-help] Networking Linux PCs

[Frank Shute]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:56:35PM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> 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.

I haven't used slackware but I've heard it's not the easiest system to
maintain. It might work out of the box or it might be semi-broken like
RedHat distros usually are or completely broken as one was on one
occasion.

>
> > > > 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.

It doesn't matter what it `feels' like IMO, does it get the job done
any better/easier is the question that needs to be asked. My
experience? It doesn't.

>
> > > 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.

RH beta testers + RH users < linux 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?

You seem to have problems with the concept that a software release
that is more widely used and tested is going to be more stable than a
software release that's not.

>
> > > > 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.

I want release quality software to be release quality, if I wanted to
bug test then I'd use beta software. RH software is released full of
bugs in my experience - I used RH for 4 yrs and it never got any
better.

>
> > > > 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?

Both to some extent. RH is largely developed `in-house', BSD is not -
anybody can contribute. BSD is hence more widely tested resulting in a
system that's renowned for its stability. That stability is also based
on it being easy to maintain.

> 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.

The problem with RPMs is that there are a limited number at RH.com
that are known to work with some particular distro. One to run qmail
instead of stinky old sendmail? Go grovelling around the net for a rpm
that may or may not play nicely with your current distro. Or build
from source.

If you go the rpm route eventually you'll land in RPM hell - you'll
come across an RPM built against a newer library so you install the
newer libraries but `oh, dear I've just gone & broken a load of other
rpms'. So update those rpms and then find they've got dependencies on
newer/older stuff and other stuff starts breaking when you update
those....

After a few hours of that game you download the tarball and build it
by hand. That will get you by for a few months but eventually you end
up with a box that is a crufty broken mess and less than easy to
upgrade. Then you buy the latest release and start the whole process
from square one again.

But with FreeBSD there are 7000+ ports, the vast majority of these are
actively maintained and they are known to play nicely with your
current release and the port maintainers have provided patches and
Makefiles so you just have to do `make install' and you can keep your
ports tree current via cvsup and upgrade them with portupgrade. But
how do I do that with some rpm or tarball that I've just grabbed off
the 'net from somewhere? You can't.

>
> > 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.

I think not. No cvsup or buildworld equivalent and portupgrade makes
rpm look lame - which it is of course. Then of course there's those
pesky rpms/tarballs that you've just grabbed off the 'net.

>
> > 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?

There is no proper system in place to keep your system current. cvsup,
buildworld and ports allow me to keep my system synchronised with how
RELEASE currently stands ATM.

Build a new kernel, base and userland automatically applying patches
along the way with RH & rpm unattended? I don't think so. Jump
from RH6.2 to RH8.0 without a major headache? No.

>
> > > 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?

See above. As it stands, XP is easier to maintain than RH but that
doesn't seem to alarm RedHat users....which itself is a cause for
alarm.

RedHat's business is currently based on a flawed OS that needs to be
fixed pretty rapidly if they are to remain in business. Increasingly
whizzy installation graphics is fiddling whilst Rome burns.

--

 Frank

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
   Boroughbridge.
 Tel: 01423 323019
     ---------
PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/

 Q: So a `Trusted Computer' is one that can break my security?
 A: Now You've got it.
                      - Dr Ross Anderson

     http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html