Hi Faheem, Osamu Many tks for your precious information
In fact, there are many linux distribution. Eg: openlinux Redhat slackware turbo linux I want to learn much about linux and would like to know Someone have experience to share about their Stable and security comparision. Eg: RH, openlinux.... In fact, I learn much from this Debian mailling list (quit active) BTW, could you describe to me in detail about your RH broken? and What do you mean about the learning step you mention? Many thanks Regards Peter http://www.nikoyo.com.hk
From: Faheem Mitha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Peter Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: debian vs suse Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:59:46PM -0400, Peter Kok wrote: > > What is the different between debian and suse? I am currently running SuSE (6.2) and Debian (2.2r3) (just newly installed on my machine, and have been using SuSE on my machine since September 99, so feel qualified to comment. SuSE is generally much more poorly designed, and is much harder to upgrade. Basically I think of it as a broken system. > Debian is better!!! Yes. > Seriously, except for packaging system and few minor style differences, > both are quite similar system (SYS-V init). > > Major difference is that debian is free volunteer efforts while suse is > commercial distribution. > > > How are the security and stable? > > System is as secure as its admin's skill and efforts. Debian is a bit more secure out of the box, I think. Though I have not been using recent versions of SuSE (6.2 is now approximately 2 years old) so maybe they have improved. > If you ask how easy to update to the latest security patched program, I > can say that debian delivers security updates quite fast and updating > system with them in debian is very easy even for active daemon programs. > > Judging from suse's RPM packaging, suse may not be as easy to upgrade > active daemons like Redhat. (I do not know.) The differences between upgrading SuSE and Debian are extraordinary. I recently had to strip down my SuSE system manually, and recompile many source rpms just to install a recent version of Gnumeric on my system. As I expect you know, SuSE has no dependency checking, the different rpms have complicated dependencies which are not always properly listed (I tended to use autoconf a lot to tell me what the dependencies were) and they sometimes didn't even use proper build-rooted source rpms, so it was often necessary to rewrite the spec files in order to recompile the source rpms safely. (As a matter of policy, I always install software using the appropriate package manager, so I never install tar.gz's.) I used Redhat 5.1 between 1998-1999, and it was even worse. Quite badly broken, basic things didn't work out of the box for no reason etc. From what I hear about Redhat recently, not much has changed. Commercial Linux systems might look appealing on the surface, but they are a mess inside. > I can tell you that Debian has steep learning curve but it is worth it. I think the steep learning curve is much exaggerated. If you've been using another Linux you should do just fine. And Debian just blows away the competition (at least among other Linuxes, don't know about the BSD's) in terms of quality control, careful and intelligent design, and upgradeability. Faheem.
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.