G. Matthew Rice wrote: > We aren't _really_ distro-neutral, too. No gentoo package > management, for example.
Well, if you want to get anal, there's really no such thing as "Gentoo package management." ;) It's more like "[Gentoo] source management." My attitude is unchanged on this. Gentoo is for ports/source control. Leave it for those objectives. I.e., don't even try to put it into the mix of DPKG/RPM or APT/YUM and packages. E.g., put it in source/build objectives. Etienne Goyer wrote: > I think being explicit about which distro/release we > specifically care about would settle the discussion once and > for all. As I said, defining a known quantity. Some would call that favoritism. In reality, you have to go with the adoption. But even that is an interesting question. The majority of distributions in use in general are Debian or Debian-based. The majority of distributions in enterprise use shifts significantly. An OpenSUSE base is now far more signficant in the SUSE/Novell enterprise products, and although Canonical (Ubuntu) solutions have increased the Debian base share, RHEL and RHEL rebuilds like CentOS are a mainstay. And then it even gets more interesting when you start looking at Service Level Agreement (SLA) marketshare, where Red Hat dominates, Novell is significant (in Linux) and Canonical is starting to gain its share (although Dell recently shooting down certification of Ubuntu LTS Server certainly didn't help). Which brings me back to what I always use, 100% redistributable and 0% indemnification issue, distros. That's Debian and Fedora in the packages-based distros (excluding Gentoo, which is not a packages-based distro). SUSE can't be ignored because of Novell's shares in various spaces and support of LPI. Debian addresses Ubuntu, largely. Fedora addresses RHEL, direct X:1 relationship. OpenSUSE (sans indemnification issue bits) works well too. _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
