On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Steve Holdoway wrote:
Let's be honest. debian screws up, redhat screws up, suse screws up,
mandrake screws up. A few of them try the Winscale solution ( change
their name in the hope that people forget (: ).
At some point in time, every major distro has cocked up their package
management. I reckon personal bias comes from which distro was working
properly when you started seriously using linux.
yep - I have to agree.
(as a sys admin) I really can't see much difference between dpkg/rpm/the
others which I forget. suse tries to limit the download volumes, and
that's the biggest difference I see.
I've got debian servers with uptimes measured in years ( well, except
for the single reboot when they moved data centres about a year ago ),
and I've got CentOS servers in the same category.
Long uptimes are misleading.
All a long uptime reports is the length of time you have between kernel
upgrades. Which "suggests" you are running old kernels.. Sigh - probably
not an issue for you, but.....
Does it *really* make that much of a difference??? I mean practically.
They all provide you with a linux platform for you to play on ( or, if
you're that way inclined, to be paid to play on... I didn't say that out
load did I? ). I see the use of a KDE or Gnome gui as being a far bigger
difference.
True.. Indeed, the real difference is probably in working out how many
times the supplied packages are broken. And to work that out, you should
do side by side comparisons.
Just my $0.02 - which is worth a lot less now than it was on Monday,
Be thankful you is not in zimbabwe. With their current rate of inflation,
2c is so meaningless that even the beggars don't want it...
Derek.
--
Derek Smithies Ph.D.
IndraNet Technologies Ltd.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ph +64 3 365 6485
Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/
