[Wylug-help] Networking Linux PCs

[John Hodrien]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Frank Shute wrote:

> 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....

But you can't just throw about lots of 'It might work out of the box or it
might be semi-broken'.  It's pointless.  FreeBSD may steal your wife and your
job.  At least I've used RedHat for a fair few years.  I don't remember
claiming to be a RedHat know it all either, never mind repeatedly saying that.

> > 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.

Right, so one of the 5.x or 6.x released missed some file.  Nothing vague
about that, no sireee.  And by completely broken, you mean the installer had
one issue.  Nothing like confusing RedHat with the RedHat installer.


> > 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?

Yes, but you should be able to use your experience to see the problem from
other people's angles.  Maybe you shouldn't have said newbie or otherwise...

> > 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.

Not at all.  I've used plenty of installers, for a variety of OS's.  I agree I
haven't used the FreeBSD one, but then I've never made out that I have.
You've tried to slate the RedHat installer with vapourous criticism without
any sound argument.  I'm not arguing that RedHat is better, merely that your
argument is almost entirely devoid of merit.

> > 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.

Really?  When did that happen?  There's googleable information on people
installing RedHat 8.0 text mode.  I've not got my CDs around, they've been
'borrowed'.

> > > > 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

So there are *no* forks of the BSD kernel?

> > > > > 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.

But you rate the changes made by them to be of significantly less value than
other OSS contributors.  Why?  If you don't think this, then why the animosity
towards their changes?

> > 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.

Right, so your admitting that you comments against KDE and Gnome were
pointless.

> > > 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.

One man's beta...

> > 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.

Define what you mean by core system.

> > 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.

True, true.  So the question has to be asked, how many broken or unmaintained
ports do you use?  If the answer is >0 then aren't you using a beta system?

> > 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.

Careful use with libraries and I've not been stung.

> 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 what do you do when you want to upgrade your libraries?

> > 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.

Always?  There really aren't that many RPMS we've installed on top of the base
RedHat system here.

> > 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.

Is it beneficial to their customers and shareholders to do so?

> > 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.

But RedHat has a responsibility to its customers that FreeBSD doesn't.
Distributed CVS would not be appropriate IMHO.

> > > 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.

No, don't see above.  These tools can update your system to what RedHat have
pre-approved.  Isn't that what you're trying to say is hard?

> 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.

Must have imagined my XP installation being such a pain in the arse I ditched
it.

> > > 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.

Oh but that'll get us into a nice 'why BSD isn't the best license' debate,
which is old ground.

> 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?

No.  I'm not burying anything.  RedHat is good.  I've not said it's flawless,
far from it, and I can give arguments as to what I think is wrong with it, but
I just don't think you've attacked RedHat from the right angle.  I've only
become a full-time RedHat user with 8.0, I'm fairly vendor-agnostic.  But I
see commercial offerings like IRIX and I think RedHat haven't got it *sooo*
wrong.

Saying that dpkg is better because of its more flexible dependency setup is
fair.  Saying that RedHat is worse because it doesn't ship with apt-get as
standard is fair.  Saying that they shouldn't ship package x because it's
unstable and insecure is fair.

jh

--
"It is not extraordinary that the extraterrestrial origin of women was a
 recurrent theme of science fiction, though I have never seen their imperfect
 grasp of their native language put forward as one more piece of evidence."
                                                     -- Sir Kingsley Amis