[Wylug-help] Networking Linux PCs

[Frank Shute]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:38:41AM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Frank Shute wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:09:24PM +0000, John Hodrien wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Frank Shute wrote:
> > >
> > > > This has always been the perceived wisdom but I often wonder how true
> > > > it is. I can't comment on Debian but having installed FreeBSD which I
> > > > was assured was terrifying and strictly for wizards, I found it to be
> > > > the easiest OS I had ever installed. It was really just a case of
> > > > being able to read the instructions with the partitioning being the
> > > > hardest bit (isn't it always when you dual boot?) although the
> > > > installer offers a sensible default.
> > >
> > > Ah but there's different groups of people.  I started with slackware, and
> > > coped but that certainly doesn't mean it was good.  Some people would start
> > > there and throw it in the bin and never bother looking again.
> >
> > 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 ;)

>
> > > The RedHat installer is hardly complex if you pick the newbie install, and I'd
> > > suspect less complex than the BSD installer.
> >
> > 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.

>
> > Installing on my laptop which only had a PCMCIA CDROM was the same
> > procedure with RedHat and FreeBSD - copy the CDROM to my Windows
> > partition and go from there. Numerous (complicated) kernel recompiles
> > with RedHat to get sound, PCMCIA and USB working, none required with
> > default FreeBSD kernel although APM doesn't work so I require an
> > (easy) recompile. Hideous amount of hacked options in linux kernel to
> > get APM working on a Thinkpad.
>
> Then you're damned unlucky with the pcmcia setup of RedHat.  I'm amazed that
> you required all these changes.  What hardware have you got?

Thinkpad 240, did have a PCMCIA IBM CDROM (no go) but swapped it for
an Archos one: not listed but could get it to work once I got the
system installed. Netgear FA410 PCMCIA NIC which required a utility to
be compiled to get it to initialise correctly on insertion.

Details about it all at:

http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/thinkpad240.html

>
> > Not the workstation but RH failed to configure the ATAPI CDROM correctly
> > and FreeBSD did.
>
> Explain.  How can RedHat fail to configure a boring ATAPI CDROM?  It manages
> Firewire but not ATAPI?  What was strange about it?  What did it do wrong?

I never got to the bottom of it - it was detected by the kernel but
just refused to work and after a week or two I got sick of it (this
was with RH7.3) and migrated to FreeBSD.

It seemed that it had problems with how it was connected. From FreeBSD
dmesg:

ad0: 6149MB <QUANTUM FIREBALL EX6.4A> [13328/15/63] at ata0-master UDMA33
ad1: 32253MB <SAMSUNG SV4084H> [65531/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA33
acd0: CDROM <CRD-8360B> at ata1-master using PIO4

>
> > What I'm really getting at is that a more thoroughly tested system
> > than RH is easier but RH insist on putting out systems that contain a
> > kernel which is hacked and hasn't had widespread use. Ditto their
> > system tools. Ditto their hacked versions of Gnome and KDE....
>
> 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.

> What faults are you pointing at with versions of KDE and Gnome?

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.

>
> > 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/  ;)

>
> > 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.

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.

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.

>
> > > > I suppose newbies might be put off by Debian as stable (or release?
> > > > Can't remember) is always someway behind the latest kernel and
> > > > utilities.
> > >
> > > Until recently, somewhat was putting it mildly.
> >
> > But it's stable and well tested which is preferable to something that
> > is not IMO. BTW, is Debian release on 2.4 now or still 2.2?
>
> See I don't think it is to the current market, because they've been sold
> computers as something that doesn't always work.

:)

> 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.

On the install side of things one could argue 'til the cows come home.
I've installed Windows in the past and it's been incredibly difficult
and I've installed FreeBSD and it's been a walk in the park by
comparison. But as ever YMMV, with the countless hardware
configurations out there. Because of this I don't think there are many
OSs/distros that are inherently easier than others to install,
certainly between Linux distros. It's more a case of just crossing
your fingers & hoping you don't run into problems.

--

 Frank

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

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

  Call yourself a computer professional? Congratulations. You are
  responsible for the imminent collapse of civilization.

     - Michael Bacarella