Well, I suppose this diversity is what is often called "freedom of choice".
These utilities do _basically_ the same, but there are major differences,
each targeting at another audience. I'm not always happy with the programs
RHAT chooses - I use xinetd instead of inetd, syslog-ng instead of syslogd,
proftpd instead of wu-ftpd etc. The same is true not only for network
programs and daemons but also for many other programs (WMs, editors etc.).
RHAT has choosen a particular set of programs - there might be good reasons
for this. Eg. the most powerful programs are often not that simple. There
might also be historical reasons for this selection - eg. when Red Hat
started, these alternatives where not available (or not good enough for
real world usage). Replacing these programs might become a nightmare when
upgrading.
(Howerever, Red Hat will probably replace the BSD printing subsystem in
7.0 - so quite fundamental changes _do_ happen).
As you said - one program might be perfect for you, but other users prefer
another package. That's fine, as this keeps that diversity alive.
On the other hand, if you compare RHAT to SuSE - SuSE now comes with
7 CDs (don't know the exact number). Well, you get nearly every program
on those CDs. But installation might become difficult even for advanced
users (let alone beginners) because you have to figure out what programs
will probably fit your particular needs. Hey, you are just installing,
you probably don't know which package to choose ... too complicated, I think.
Michael
> Hello!
>
> It's seemed strange to me -- there are many different implementations
> of some utilities around. Examples:
>
> gnu inetutils
> ftp/ftpd, inetd, rsh&co, syslogd, talk/talkd, telnet/telnetd, tftp/tftpd, whois
> netkit-base -- possible dead (?), now split in redhat
> inetd, ping, telnet/telnetd, etc
> net-tools
> ifconfig, arp, route, *name, etc
> traceroute
> iproute
> with replacements of tools from net-tools (just one `ip' command for all)
> iputils
> ping6, traceroute6, ...
> sysklogd
> klogd, syslogd
> xinetd
> with replacement for inetd
> wu-ftpd, proftpd, beroftpd, ncftpd etc...
> etc...
>
> All this packages made with different goals. For example, `ip' from iproute
> package will never use hostnames, just ip addresses, but other (from net-tools)
> use hostnames massively.
>
> Looking to all this, I hope that some time all this "menagerie" will be merged into
> one package (like netkit-base was, or like inetutils is), so that all utilities will
> be consistent with each other.... Just a hope?..
>
> But here is a guestion. Does anybody knows any comparisions for, e.g. syslogds in
> inetutils, sysklogd, and *bsd sources? The same for inetd from
>iputils/netkit-base/*BSD?
> Why, for example, redhat chooses to use netkit-base instead of gnu inetutils?
> (one little example of that I asking -- syslogd in redhat distro (from sysklogd)
>seemed
> to be very resource-gluttonous when some app uses it heavily, but this is not true
> for FreeBSD, for example. I looked to this from mail server's view - messages will
>pass
> much faster when i add `-' before /var/log/maillog in syslogd.conf in linux, this is
> already fast enouth on FBSD).
>
> And another one. Does anybody knows some place for discussion about such a things
>like
> "how should be done some common utility"? I maybe can maintain this set of utils,
> but this will be the Right Thing(tm) to _me_, probably not to others...
>
> Regards,
> Michael.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe:
> mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
>
>
_______________________________________
Michael Redinger
Computer Centre University of Innsbruck
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
