[Wylug-help] Networking Linux PCs

[Frank Shute]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:04:53AM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Frank Shute wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:56:35PM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> So you don't really know about Slackware then?

I never maintained that I knew a lot about Slackware but you seem to
maintain that you know a lot about RH....

> Which RedHat are you accusing of being completely broken, and on
> which occasion?  Vague slander is really quite pointless.

One of the 5.* or 6.* distros shipped without one of the files you
needed to make the install floppies from. Not vague and not slander -
fact.

> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Ah but you're talking about yourself again, when you originally said 'newbie
> or otherwise'.

I can only go by my experience can't I?

> You've not said anything compelling that makes me thing that
> the RedHat installer is more complicated than the FreeBSD one.

Whereas you prefer to use pure speculation as you haven't even tried
installing FreeBSD. "RedHat installer is easiest because that's the
only one I've used" is what your argument boils down to as a result of
an overwhelming lack of knowledge.

> So what if it
> has pretty graphics to make newbies feel more comfortable.  It's not like it
> needs them (and can be run without still AFAIK).

So you don't know? FYI, it can't.

> > >
> > > Only tested by the beta testers + all the RedHat users.
> >
> > RH beta testers + RH users < linux users
>
> But normal kernel users < linux users.  I don't get your point.

Try this:

FreeBSD kernel users = FreeBSD 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.
>
> But you're implying that RedHat are this evil closed group.

Where did I imply that they were evil? They can develop their software
however they see fit as far as I'm concerned.

> They're merely a large contributor (who also chooses to fork things
> slightly to their needs).
>
> You seem to have a problem with RedHat.  What bugs have RedHat introduced into
> KDE and Gnome?  What bugs have been removed by RedHat from KDE and Gnome?

Don't know and don't care, I don't use & wouldn't use either. If I
want cartoons I watch the Simpsons.

> > 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.
>
> YMMV I suppose is all I can say to that.

It still remains beta quality, your mileage doesn't vary in that
respect.

> > > 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.
>
> Rubbish.  RedHat is largely developed by all the people who develop the
> packages that comprise it.  If it was developed in house it would be nowhere
> near where it is now.

The core `system' is developed in house, Debian isn't nor is FreeBSD.
That's precisely the reason why it is where it is now - at the
crossroads to towns called Backward and Broken.

> > > 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.
>
> Ah, you mean like source RPMS?  Nope, you've just plunged yourself into the
> dark again.  If someone makes a source RPM that doesn't work, then it's the
> same as if they'd made a port that didn't work, no?

Wrong. You're showing that overwhelming ignorance again. Ports are
tagged as unmaintained, broken or maintained, the vast majority being
maintained. The majority of RPMs aren't tagged with respect to any
particular release or their brokenness - they may or may not work -
and to use one of your favourite phrases YMMV.

>
> > 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....
>
> But you don't *have* to upgrade libraries, you can surely install both?

Use the old: rpm -ivh --force

You can hear the sound of your system breaking when you pull that
stunt.

So I've got a system with countless different versions of the same
libraries? How clever is that? FreeBSD I've got one libc and current
ports are compiled against *current* libraries.

>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.  But if you take something from outside of the ports then you're in
> the same state.

In my experience you rarely have to take anything from outside of
ports. I've got a couple of trivial Blackbox apps that I've compiled
by hand. But with RH you're always taking rpms or source from outside
the core distributed system.

> You can't just argue scale as being why RPM sucks.  If RPMS
> covered all 7000+ ports, what would your argument against it be?  It's not
> that hard.

If it's not that hard and it's beneficial to do it, then why don't
RedHat do it? Gentoo have managed to pull their heads out of their
butts and do it.

>
> > > > 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.
>
> Ahhh but you're not arguing against RPM now.  You're arguing about one of the
> command line tools you've used.  apt-get for RPM, urpmi, up2date?

I'm arguing about the way a RedHat system is maintained as a *whole*.
There are no comparable tools with a RedHat system and there is no
distributed cvs system with which to use them.

> > 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.
>
> up2date.  apt-get RPM, urpmi (Mandrake).

See above.

>
> > 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.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hahaha.  Sorry, I thought you were a troll before, but now I know you are.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you're wasting your time
shooting the messenger. 5 yrs ago RH was better than NT4 by a mile but
it's made no noticeable progress whereas the MS systems have. A
desktop XP system is trivial to maintain for a newbie or otherwise as
compared to a RH system.

>
> > 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.
>
> I see no evidence of FreeBSD taking the world by storm.

Does that concern you? Does it concern me? No.

FYI though, with FreeBSD code being in OSX and the MS offerings you
can argue that FreeBSD has got a greater user base than not just
RedHat but Linux itself.

Does it concern you that you've chosen to bury your head in the sand
and take it as an article of faith that RedHat is a great system and
is not flawed, and that any suggestion otherwise is slander?

It should do.

--

 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