hi ya patrick/george
> I graduated from Red Hat to Debian twice. I was hard-headed and did not
> learn the first time ... gave it a second chance. I came back to Debian.
>
> The ONLY thing Red Hat has is an easy install ... upkeep of a Red Hat
> system is a nightmare.
install on rh ain't that trivial.... lots of gotchas and oopps... like
other distro... just need to watch it...
- a trivial install would be:
* fdisk the disk/format/mount it
* dd if=/working_distro of=/target-disk
* tweek the network info -- no way for it to know your domain/ip# in
advance
* autodetect your SVGA/X11 config info
* boot_it and it should work
whether you like one distro over another would depend on...
-- whether you can compile the linux kernel on the distro you just bought...
( some recent version cannot compile its own kernel that is on the cd )
-- which apps you like ....already on the cd you get
- which hardware you have...some distro does NOT support some
hardware...
- elm, pine, ssh, tripwire,
- egcs, java,
- wordperfect, staroffice, applix, mysql, oracle, sybase, etc
-- how you want to upgrade/patch/maintain it
- the nightmare or just let rsync/mirror/raid/home_brew do its magic
- if you are local ( santa clara - silicon valley ) ...stop by....
have these silly boxes for poking around...
-
rh-5.x/6.0 slackware-3.6/4.0, suse-6.2, deb-2.1/2.2, caldera-2.2,
tl-3.6, etc
have fun linuxing
alvin
> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Patrick Kirk wrote:
>
> > I'm not a techie so this is a user's perspective. Red Hat is just as free
> > as Debian so there's no issue there like there is with SuSE and Caldera.
> > There are far more Red Hat users out there and lots of RPMs. So give it a
> > try and decide for yourself. I use Debian because its so easy to keep it
> > stable, because I think apt-get is way way easier than rpm and because the
> > support offered by this list is great.
> >
> > Patrick
