On Tuesday 09 September 2008 21:27:19 Karanbir Singh wrote: > > 1. Choose a distro which has a good default repository of packages. > > I stopped using Fedora years back because it only had the Ubuntu > > equivalent of "main" and everything else had to be managed by > > downloading from third party repository like freshrpms etc., which > > had their own set of incompatibilities. At the risk of starting a > > flame war, I would suggest using any debian based distro(including > > debian itself) , enabling universe/multiverse equivalent of > > repositories in the distro and take advantage of their huge > > repositories. > > Surely this situation has changed recently ? Also the level of QA > done for the pkgs in fedora at the moment is much higher and better > organised than ubuntu. > > Personally I think Ubuntu is a total and complete waste of time. for > everyone involved. Except a few of the guys at Canonical who are only > sitting back and laughing at the fanatical religions zealots that > seem to have spurned out of the woodwork.
Well, it would have been nicer if your arguments against ubuntu were a bit more specific than a sweeping "waste of time". Also, it would have been helpful to have explained, if your intention was indeed to convince me otherwise, exactly how the specific problem I mentioned about Fedora some time back has "changed". Guess how one can make out zealots? ;) > > > 2. Consider any application which is not available in the > > repository as simply "not available". It doesn't exist. Kaput. Live > > with it. Resist all attempts to download and compile, especially > > packages which deviate even one step away > > from "./configure --prefix=/usr/local/$NAME;make;make install". > > I take it that you havent actually ever used Linux in a production > environment then. Even for pkgs that *do* exist in repos - most > packages are encouraged to make sensible choices for good defaults, > not to fit every use case. For the use case, its common to see pkgs > redone inhouse to suit taste and requirements. You must have missed out my rider at the top of my mail - I was talking for the benefit of a regular user. One who doesn't need to be a power user to use Linux. Your use case seems to be quite different from Narendra's friend/brother/cousin out there which I was addressing. BTW, in a typical SOHO environment or even large companies which use Linux boxes for specific uses like mail servers, database servers, etc., what % of packages are actually redone? In most cases, only the ones specific to the use of the box are actually looked at carefully and configured appropriately. Most organizations out there cannot afford to have a separate local branch of packages where vendor/security changes are merged and maintained separately. - Sandip _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
