Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Dima wrote: Also, it's (Slackware's) a great first Linux for those who like to learn swimming in the deep end of the pool. Back in the pioneer days, that's all there was...a deep pool. Time flies like arrows, but fruit flies like bananas Perry Piplanihttp://perrypip.netservers.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netservers.com
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Paul Christenson [N3EOP] wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro wrote: What is the difference between Red-Hat, Debian and Slackware? Slackware: One of the oldest distributions, and is showing its age. Created as a bugfixed version of SLS (Softlanding Linux System). Maintained by one person (Patrick Volkerding); home site: Walnut Creek CD-ROM (www.cdrom.com). No package tool available. Very slow to get updated; no interim upgrades. Considered by many old-timers to have lost it with the latest version (3.1), as most of the new parts are added flash, with most known security problems left untouched. Red Hat: Available in two versions; shareware and commercial. Most of the software is the same; the commercial version used to have a commercial X server included. Maintained by several paid people; home site: Red Hat Software (www.redhat.com). Package tool available. Reasonably quick in bugfixes, sometimes slow in major updates (one of the last to have a version with a 2.x kernel). Versions available for DEC Alpha and SPARC. Rumored to be one of the easiest to set up (it and I simply don't get along). Was the base for the original Caldera Network Desktop (a commercial version of Linux, with many interesting additions). Debian: Maintained by over a hundred volunteers, each maintaining one (or several) package. Package tool available; able to use Red Hat packages. Hosted by CrossLink; home page (www.debian.org). Overall, one of the fastest with updates and bugfixes; in many cases, the program author is the package maintainer. Initial installation has had its share of gotchas, mainly dealing with dependencies. (Don't install everything at once; install the recommended packages on the initial installation, then install a few packages at a time afterward.) Hope this helps. I would like to add that the software it's self is Linux (whatever version) the different distributions are just different configurations of the same software, basically. There are some added scripts and special binaries that are package specific but there purpose is generally only to aid in the installation or configuration of the software. The different distributions may package different binaries of extra goodies as they see fit but it's purpose is to put it all together for the normal ppl. Anyone could D/L everything seperately and call it his own without being a particular distribution. It's like buying an office suite (package) of 3 or 4 programs at the store. You could get them seperately but they've been packaged. --Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Slackware _does_ have a package tool (called, I believe, pkgtool :-) albeit simpler (less sophisticated, less capable) than those of Debian or Redhat. Also Slackware _does_ have interim upgrades, both for new software versions and to fix security holes. However with more limited packaging and versioning etc, these are much less convenient than, say, Debian. IMO calling pkgtool a package tool is, ummm, a slight exaggeration: a package tool is somewhat more than a dialog-based front-end to tar. We should, however, be grateful to Slackware: it makes people appreciate Debian. Also, it's a great first Linux for those who like to learn swimming in the deep end of the pool. :) -- Dimitri emaziuk @ curtin.edu.au --- Avoid reality at all costs.
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro wrote: What is the difference between Red-Hat, Debian and Slackware? Slackware: One of the oldest distributions, and is showing its age. Created as a bugfixed version of SLS (Softlanding Linux System). Maintained by one person (Patrick Volkerding); home site: Walnut Creek CD-ROM (www.cdrom.com). No package tool available. Very slow to get updated; no interim upgrades. Considered by many old-timers to have lost it with the latest version (3.1), as most of the new parts are added flash, with most known security problems left untouched. Red Hat: Available in two versions; shareware and commercial. Most of the software is the same; the commercial version used to have a commercial X server included. Maintained by several paid people; home site: Red Hat Software (www.redhat.com). Package tool available. Reasonably quick in bugfixes, sometimes slow in major updates (one of the last to have a version with a 2.x kernel). Versions available for DEC Alpha and SPARC. Rumored to be one of the easiest to set up (it and I simply don't get along). Was the base for the original Caldera Network Desktop (a commercial version of Linux, with many interesting additions). Debian: Maintained by over a hundred volunteers, each maintaining one (or several) package. Package tool available; able to use Red Hat packages. Hosted by CrossLink; home page (www.debian.org). Overall, one of the fastest with updates and bugfixes; in many cases, the program author is the package maintainer. Initial installation has had its share of gotchas, mainly dealing with dependencies. (Don't install everything at once; install the recommended packages on the initial installation, then install a few packages at a time afterward.) Hope this helps.
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
I didn't know that Debian can use RedHat packages. Can dpkg do it or do I need something more? -=- Daniel Robbins School of Medicine Computer Services University of New Mexico [email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Daniel Robbins wrote: I didn't know that Debian can use RedHat packages. Can dpkg do it or do I need something more? It's the 'alien' package.
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
Hosted by CrossLink; Beleive it or not we now have 73 FTP sites! Crosslink hosts the main web site and one of the FTP sites. There are a number of secondary web servers coming up now - for example there's one in Spain. Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
What is the difference between Red-Hat, Debian and Slackware? Slackware: One of the oldest distributions, and is showing its age. Created as a bugfixed version of SLS (Softlanding Linux System). Maintained by one person (Patrick Volkerding); home site: Walnut Creek CD-ROM (www.cdrom.com). No package tool available. Very slow to get updated; no interim upgrades. Considered by many old-timers to have lost it with the latest version (3.1), as most of the new parts are added flash, with most known security problems left untouched. I don't intend to promote Slackware on a Debian mailing list (I'm in the process of `upgrading' from Slackware to Debian), but there are some mistakes in the above. Slackware _does_ have a package tool (called, I believe, pkgtool :-) albeit simpler (less sophisticated, less capable) than those of Debian or Redhat. Also Slackware _does_ have interim upgrades, both for new software versions and to fix security holes. However with more limited packaging and versioning etc, these are much less convenient than, say, Debian. -- David Pfitzner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
I would like to supplement Paul's excellent summary in respect to Red Hat. Red Hat is heavily oriented towards Xwindows. The installation program configures X very early, and the balance of the installation uses Xwindow interface. They have several X-based administration tools that they think should be used. If, for instance, you load the fstab file in an editor, you are warned that you should be using control panel (or whatever it's called.) Of course, you can refuse to configure X in the installation, and do administration in the usual manner, without using the X-based tools. If you want Linux in order to get multi-tasking without a GUI, you shouldn't even look at Red Hat. If, on the other hand, you like using a GUI, Red Hat should be one of the options you consider. Bob On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:02:29 -0800 (PST), Paul Christenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro wrote: What is the difference between Red-Hat, Debian and Slackware? Slackware: One of the oldest distributions, and is showing its age. Created as a bugfixed version of SLS (Softlanding Linux System). Maintained by one person (Patrick Volkerding); home site: Walnut Creek CD-ROM (www.cdrom.com). No package tool available. Very slow to get updated; no interim upgrades. Considered by many old-timers to have lost it with the latest version (3.1), as most of the new parts are added flash, with most known security problems left untouched. Red Hat: Available in two versions; shareware and commercial. Most of the software is the same; the commercial version used to have a commercial X server included. Maintained by several paid people; home site: Red Hat Software (www.redhat.com). Package tool available. Reasonably quick in bugfixes, sometimes slow in major updates (one of the last to have a version with a 2.x kernel). Versions available for DEC Alpha and SPARC. Rumored to be one of the easiest to set up (it and I simply don't get along). Was the base for the original Caldera Network Desktop (a commercial version of Linux, with many interesting additions). Debian: Maintained by over a hundred volunteers, each maintaining one (or several) package. Package tool available; able to use Red Hat packages. Hosted by CrossLink; home page (www.debian.org). Overall, one of the fastest with updates and bugfixes; in many cases, the program author is the package maintainer. Initial installation has had its share of gotchas, mainly dealing with dependencies. (Don't install everything at once; install the recommended packages on the initial installation, then install a few packages at a time afterward.) Hope this helps.
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote: Any suggestions? [...] You then need to obtain the non-debian source for dpkg. Once you have this compiled and running, you need to carefuly install the base system, using dpkg -i. Start with ld.so and libc5 and the rest should go smoothly. The procedure you describe is perfect.. but.. I users asks I would suggest: Moving everything to /usr/local and untar base*.tgz from root. This should be much safer... I think... Perhaps one very secure procedure should be chosen and included in the FAQ list. -- Nicolás Lichtmaier.- | From Buenos Aires, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Argentina!
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On This Day, In The Year of Our Lord 18 Mar 97, 13:23 I wonder if it is possible to upgrade from slackware to debian, and keep most of my system. Is there an easy way to do this, or should I just fdisk the thing and start all over? I wouldn't mind finding out myself. I am very new to Linux and I am just trying to understand the difference between the various distributions. What is the difference between Red-Hat, Debian and Slackware? Thanks =) Leandro+ ___ Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro (LA672) Assistant to the Editor and Localization, IFRONT Internet Frontier, Toronto, Canada Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (416) 656-2659 ext. 425 Fax: (416) 656-0863 Rumenta: per chi non si accontenta. ZimID 46B98555 1993/12/15 0D 6E 96 68 D6 B3 9A 96 20 ED 1F AF 11 46 13 79
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On This Day, In Th
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
On 18 Mar 1997, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote: I wonder if it is possible to upgrade from slackware to debian, and keep most of my system. Is there an easy way to do this, or should I just fdisk the thing and start all over? Any suggestions? Move any packages or libraries that you wish to keep, even if it is only for the transition (you will need to move all the standard libraries and ld.so for the transition), into /usr/local. You should also probably include a copy of /home and any other specific directories you might want to recover, like; /dev and /etc. You then need to obtain the non-debian source for dpkg. Once you have this compiled and running, you need to carefuly install the base system, using dpkg -i. Start with ld.so and libc5 and the rest should go smoothly. From there it is just a matter of installing what you want. You may also find that many of the packages you saved in /usr/local are easier to manage in their Debian packages. There was a recent report of someone doing this conversion on a RedHat system, so I suspect Slackware should be upgradable as well. Keep us informed of your progress. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Upgrading from slackware to debian
Stig, I wonder if it is possible to upgrade from slackware to debian, and keep most of my system. Is there an easy way to do this, or should I just fdisk the thing and start all over? I recently upgraded from slackware 3.0 (linux 1.2.13) to Debian (linux 2.0.6) and still have both resident on my host. It is therefore possible. Following the Debian instructions, I used fdisk and started all over in a fresh partition. This was not easy. In hindsight, I believe that it was safe but not necessary to start fresh. I believe that it can be done much more simply using the slackware environment. If you or others are interested further, please email me direct, so we don't use list bandwidth. Trying to help, -- Robert Meier FANUC Robotics North America, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 1-810-377-7469 Fax: 1-810-377-7363
