Re: RedHat vs Debian (was Re: Bash Prompt in an XTerm)
My question to you is how do you find them (which one do you think is best; if there is such a thing as 'best'). Any particular features etc you prefer on one over the other? Redhat is *far* easier to install on a slow machine. After installation is another matter :) Redhat's installation programs are apparently compiled rather than interpeted; they move directly from one screen to the next. At some points in debian, the wait is measured in minutes (particularly module installation). The installation program constantly looks to check the current state, which is where most of the wasted time goes. Redhat's rpm is not as advanced as dpkg (though again, it seems to be faster). There are some dependency issues it doesn't adress. On the other hand, if you try to install a package with dependency problems with dpkg, it informs you which other packages it directly depends on. rpm does this recursively (why doesn't dpkg, for that matter). rpm has a built in access method for ftp. Debian has an ftp-mode for dselect, which can automatically handle any updates. dselect is almost a nice package. It classifies packages by types, and handles dependencies. On the other hand, it is a nightmare for beginners if there is a missing or wrong-version package with dependency problems, and it is close to unusable without a pentium or better. The selection of .deb files seems much richer than for .rpm files; i couldn't find a couple of things i regularly used when i installed redhat a couple of weeks ago. Are there any reviews (as neutral as possible) on how the two compare? I'm not claiming neutrality, but the above is the closest i've seen :) Are they compatible? partway. the alien package can convert .rpm's to .deb's. Some dependencies may not translate corectly; i'm not sure. How hard is it to move from one to the other? If nothing else, copy /etc (for reference, not use), keep /home, erase everything else just install. rick -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: RedHat vs Debian (was Re: Bash Prompt in an XTerm)
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Rick Hawkins wrote: Redhat is *far* easier to install on a slow machine. After installation is another matter :) Slightly faster; not necessarily easier. Since 4.0, Red Hat has been a disaster for anyone with a CD-ROM attached to a SoundBlaster card, for instance. Redhat's installation programs are apparently compiled rather than interpeted; they move directly from one screen to the next. At some points in debian, the wait is measured in minutes (particularly module installation). The installation program constantly looks to check the current state, which is where most of the wasted time goes. In my experience on a 486slc2-66 (not exactly a screamer), it was more like several tens of seconds. On a pentium it's reasonably fast. Redhat's rpm is not as advanced as dpkg (though again, it seems to be faster). There are some dependency issues it doesn't adress. On the other hand, if you try to install a package with dependency problems with dpkg, it informs you which other packages it directly depends on. rpm does this recursively (why doesn't dpkg, for that matter). rpm has a built in access method for ftp. Debian has an ftp-mode for dselect, which can automatically handle any updates. dselect is almost a nice package. It classifies packages by types, and handles dependencies. On the other hand, it is a nightmare for beginners if there is a missing or wrong-version package with dependency problems, and it is close to unusable without a pentium or better. Upgrading Red Hat is almost as big a deal as an initial install (boot from floppy, etc.) Upgrading with dselect is a piece of cake, requiring patience, however. The selection of .deb files seems much richer than for .rpm files; i couldn't find a couple of things i regularly used when i installed redhat a couple of weeks ago. That depends a lot on what you are looking for. RedHat has many thing which Debian does not and vice-versa. That's where alien should be a big help. One nice thing Red Hat has is the configuration tools. However, if you don't have X, you can't use them. Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AX.25:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: RedHat vs Debian (was Re: Bash Prompt in an XTerm)
Redhat is *far* easier to install on a slow machine. After installation is another matter :) Slightly faster; not necessarily easier. Since 4.0, Red Hat has been a disaster for anyone with a CD-ROM attached to a SoundBlaster card, for instance. this was a future domain. But on the same machine, it took me a few minutes (prior to unpacking) on redhat, and probably about a half hour on debian (which i had installed many times by then). Redhat's installation programs are apparently compiled rather than interpeted; they move directly from one screen to the next. At some points in debian, the wait is measured in minutes (particularly module installation). The installation program constantly looks to check the current state, which is where most of the wasted time goes. In my experience on a 486slc2-66 (not exactly a screamer), it was more like several tens of seconds. On a pentium it's reasonably fast. i should have phrased that better; i don't think it ever reaches 2 full minutes. Upgrading Red Hat is almost as big a deal as an initial install (boot from floppy, etc.) Upgrading with dselect is a piece of cake, requiring patience, however. !!! After install is worse than i thought :) The selection of .deb files seems much richer than for .rpm files; i couldn't find a couple of things i regularly used when i installed redhat a couple of weeks ago. That depends a lot on what you are looking for. RedHat has many thing which Debian does not and vice-versa. That's where alien should be a big help. particularly the commercial stuff, which generally seems to be rpm only. Something that ocurred to me the other day would be to build into alien.deb some dependency information for common .rpm's, such as staroffice. One nice thing Red Hat has is the configuration tools. However, if you don't have X, you can't use them. I didn't get as far as using those. But if they're nice, let's steal them :) rick -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: RedHat vs Debian (was Re: Bash Prompt in an XTerm)
I have converted from RedHat to Debian. RedHat is very nice if you don't want to look at writing your own scripts. The configuration tools are very nice; however, I had to edit them by hand with an editor to make them work correctly after a version upgrade. I still have a RedHat system for Applixware. My email and ppp server is Debian. The configuration tools that come with Debian are easier since I don't have X-windows running -- From: Rick Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: RedHat vs Debian (was Re: Bash Prompt in an XTerm) Date: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 12:54 PM Redhat is *far* easier to install on a slow machine. After installation is another matter :) Slightly faster; not necessarily easier. Since 4.0, Red Hat has been a disaster for anyone with a CD-ROM attached to a SoundBlaster card, for instance. this was a future domain. But on the same machine, it took me a few minutes (prior to unpacking) on redhat, and probably about a half hour on debian (which i had installed many times by then). Redhat's installation programs are apparently compiled rather than interpeted; they move directly from one screen to the next. At some points in debian, the wait is measured in minutes (particularly module installation). The installation program constantly looks to check the current state, which is where most of the wasted time goes. In my experience on a 486slc2-66 (not exactly a screamer), it was more like several tens of seconds. On a pentium it's reasonably fast. i should have phrased that better; i don't think it ever reaches 2 full minutes. Upgrading Red Hat is almost as big a deal as an initial install (boot from floppy, etc.) Upgrading with dselect is a piece of cake, requiring patience, however. !!! After install is worse than i thought :) The selection of .deb files seems much richer than for .rpm files; i couldn't find a couple of things i regularly used when i installed redhat a couple of weeks ago. That depends a lot on what you are looking for. RedHat has many thing which Debian does not and vice-versa. That's where alien should be a big help. particularly the commercial stuff, which generally seems to be rpm only. Something that ocurred to me the other day would be to build into alien.deb some dependency information for common .rpm's, such as staroffice. One nice thing Red Hat has is the configuration tools. However, if you don't have X, you can't use them. I didn't get as far as using those. But if they're nice, let's steal them :) rick -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
