[Wylug-help] Distro wars 2

[Nik Jewell]

With all due respect to the parties involved in this long running
discussion (under multiple headings), is there any chance that this could
be continued off-list?

I'm normally the first to argue that technical discussions be carried on
on-list, such that useful searchable archives are created for the future.

However, this conversation has become somewhat convoluted, and it is hard
to trawl through the multiple levels of quotes to extract what may be
usefully recorded for posterity.

I don't mean to offend anybody....

Nik



At 16:30 03/12/2002 +0000, Frank Shute wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:08:03AM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Frank Shute wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>
>It's not pointless & what's more it's an acknowledged fact.
>
> > 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.
>
>You've consistently maintained a defensive wall around RH, but now you
>say you don't know that much about RH. It's already been established
>that you don't know much about other distros or OSes either. Yet you
>choose to argue from a state of ignorance.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
>Oh of course, the RH installer has nothing to do whatsoever with a RH
>distribution, and the fact that you couldn't install the OS at all was
>one minor `issue' not a showstopping bug.
>
>I suppose shipping a broken compiler was a minor issue too.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
>What you really mean is: `see it from my jaundiced perspective'.
>
> > Maybe you shouldn't have said newbie or otherwise...
>
>That's my opinion. I don't require your advice on what opinions I
>choose to voice.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> > >
> > > FreeBSD kernel users = FreeBSD users
> >
> > So there are *no* forks of the BSD kernel?
>
>BSD kernel != FreeBSD kernel
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
>The answer is 0 - my system is release quality. No showstopping bugs
>or broken compilers.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
>I don't have to `carefully use' my libraries, I just do: make install
>clean. Are you beginning to see where the administrative overhead
>of a RH system comes from?
>
> > > 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?
>
>I don't have to `want to upgrade' my libraries, it gets done for me
>automatically when I use portupgrade and all the installed software
>dependent on the libraries gets upgraded along the way.
>
> > > > 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.
>
>Admission of guilt. You're running bugfest sendmail & probably some
>shit-stricken desktop environment.
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
>Well they seem to think 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.
>
>What's this responsibility to their customers you talk about? To
>continually push out a broken system? I'm not bothered what system
>they choose to distribute their software by, just dump rpm & maintain
>a sensible number of packages to work with the new system.
>
> >
> > > > > 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?
>
>And RedHat haven't even pre-approved a sensible MTA.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
>So you don't know anything about XP maintenance either, but you'll
>play safe and say that RH is easier to maintain anyway.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>IRIX is a very different horse for a very different course. Try
>installing RedHat on your 128 proc box.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>So after complaining about slander and how good RPM is you finally
>acknowledge that their system is just a little bit wanting. Bizarre.
>
>--
>
>  Frank
>
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>    Boroughbridge.
>  Tel: 01423 323019
>      ---------
>PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wylug-help mailing list
>Wylug-help@wylug.org.uk
>http://list.wylug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/wylug-help