On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:32 -0500, Kent West wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
using Sid, it
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 22:37 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
^
computer
any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
However, Woody (which was released analogous to RH9) was just as rock
solid stable as Sarge. I agree completely that we must compare
relatively equal systems, but doing so does not change the outcome:
Debian Stable lives up to its name.
I was
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me.
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and
office, to
Really great news. I am also shifted here like you :)On 4/6/06, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and havemainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versionshave sort of bothered me.So, today I tried debian for the first
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
and wow, am I impressed. I
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 23:03, charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
and wow, am I impressed.
Snip
Under
charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
and wow,
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
using Sid, it just dies. :)
Your /etc/rununplugged.rc file must be hosed.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
^
computer
any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state,
otherwise your config is not properly configured
but,
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released
06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite
significant in terms of hardware support and general application
stability.
bingo ...
some folks like to
Hi! I recently switched to debian Sarge (and sid) for all of my work (YAY I
LOVE IT!).
Now, until now, I had been using redhat 7.3 for my servers. I have many redhat
7.3 servers, and now, I have installed 2 debian sarge servers (i know it is
not yet released, but I have tested it for months
google ssh reverse dns debian
turned up this as the first hit:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2002/03/msg00081.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hola Caya,
Simplemente decirte si te refieres a mi comentario que tienes razón en
parte, yo con la redhat 7.1 estoy entusiasmado, si lees la última revista de
PCworld, se hace una comparativa de Versiones de LINUX, a Suse la ponen como
la primera con un 8, Debian es el segundo y pierde el
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 04:04:24PM +0100, Alain BACH wrote:
* Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut
paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP.
apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.19-686-smp
ou
apt-get install kernel-image-2.2.19-smp
ou
* Alain BACH [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-15 16:04] :
Bonjour à tous,
[...]
* Mon problème de base avec Debian est un problème dINSTALLATION : ça peut
paraître con, mais jaimerais pouvoir utiliser mon bipro en SMP. Jaimerais
pouvoir utiliser ma carte Xircom sur mon portable. Jaimerais
Bonsoir,
Pour faire simple et cours , Debian, Redhat, Mandrake,
Suse,Connectiva,..sont des distributions qui reposent sur un noyaui
Linux
Chaque distribution possède quelque spécificité mais cela reste du Linux.
Concernant Debian, il s'agit d'une distrution Linux mais aussi un état
Bonjour à tous,
Je vois que mes « conclusions » dhier ont largement contribuées à lancer le
débat sur le choix de mune ou lautre distributions de Linux.
Avant daller plus loin, permettez moi de placer mon décor personnel.
Jai ici deux machines :
- La première est un portable Compaq Armada
j'aime bien ton mail ( c'est le seul que j'ai lu sur le sujet ). Je pense
que tu n'auras aucunes difficulté à installé debian sur ta machine.
En tout cas, tu peux essayé tout seul ( tu dis que tu as du temps libre )
car c'est en forgeant qu'on devient forgeron !
N'hésite pas à demander de
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Debian vs Redhat : le débat ?
Bonjour à tous,
Je vois que mes « conclusions » dhier ont largement contribuées à lancer le
débat sur le choix de mune ou lautre distributions de Linux.
Avant daller plus loin, permettez moi de placer mon décor personnel.
Jai ici deux
Roderick Cummings declaimed:
...but I have a dozen or so 486's, IPX's, udb's chugging along
Me too. Just because I can! And if I didn't keep the 486 up, what would
I do with that perfectly good ISA+microchannel SCSI card?
:-) PM
--
Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11
[EMAIL
%% martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mfk also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300
+0100]:
...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
mfk no karsten, you messed the order up again!
That's a quote from Star Trek IV, actually.
--
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:58:41PM -0500, Paul Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
%% martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mfk also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300
+0100]:
...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
mfk no
on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:40:46PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]:
...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
no karsten, you messed the order up again!
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, which would be
the one dictating this...
--
martin; (greetings from
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:07:18AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
Alec wrote:
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:26:41PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking,
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have
the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did. but in 7.0, redhat provided the /etc/init.d symlink, and
i believe that 7.2 had it completely
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:19:27PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
also sprach Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did.
--On Saturday, January 12, 2002 13:03:27 -0800 Karsten M. Self
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
Mind you, when I try explaining this to my RH friends, there's generally
strong resistence to the concept that Dweebian might
From: Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Subject: Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:21:13 -0500
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build
* Adam Majer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^
You are more right than you think: every time I run into
I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the good
things it all has.
Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the
pioneering work for the community (and
Alec wrote:
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
functionally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 11:02 am, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the
good things it all has.
Won't
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you
have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 12:52 pm, Alec wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
you fall so far behind, even
also sprach Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.1802 +0100]:
Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing
much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata
for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make
rough cuts
also sprach nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0152 +0100]:
i also don't like that packages install all to /usr/local. i can see
how ports would do this but i would expect software installed via
sysinstall to go to /usr
i wouldn't, but its about as useful a discussion as which whisky is best.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:27:13PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
yet, or wasn't the most popular packager.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
have the same problem.
Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with the
also sprach Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.0610 +0100]:
Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
have a look at openoffice.org or star office. what do you dislike about
them? i prefer openoffice btw, it seems faster...
--
martin; (greetings from
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:16:04AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
Calyth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
have the same problem.
Of course, that's a function
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:34:33 -0600
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved.
:)
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
Yeah. As of a
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
c.f. debian ;)
Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
www.microsoft.com might be able to
quote who=Dimitri Maziuk
You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix
suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in
Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better.
Microsoft Helps!(tm)
yeah me too. about 3 years ago i quit a job at a company
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other
things which make .rpm based
also sprach David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1854 +0100]:
BTW, I see where you're heading. Yes, obviously, a great build
environment will significantly ease a maintainer's burdens. But I still
say that it's on the shoulders of the maintainer :)
but Debian's FHS-accordance is really
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^
You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and
I immediately start feeling
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a
also sprach nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2049 +0100]:
i hear win2000 and XP improves on some issues, but
after 8 years of using MS stuff(DOS3.x - NT4) i left
and never looked back. i gave them a fair chance, i don't
think they deserve another.
excuse me? did you *ever* productively
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
[snip]
If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
yet, or wasn't the most popular packager.
- --
also sprach Alec [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0037 +0100]:
If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
how long before DEB did RPM exist?
(i don't know the answer. all i know about this is from having
participated (and read) discussions on what should be the LSB
also sprach Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
to be as maintainable over the long haul.
which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
Personally, I have issues with a binary-based
quote who=Stuart Krivis
I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just
don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul.
Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am
enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-)
while ports serve a certain
* Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^
You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
all I need to do is remember the
also sprach Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0459 +0100]:
If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix
anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple
enough? :)
h! now i get it! thanks! ;^
damn, it's 5am again...
--
martin;
On Thursday 10 January 2002 19:21, Stuart Krivis wrote:
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of
dpkg-shlibdeps?
only
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Stuart Krivis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
to be as maintainable over the long haul.
which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
also sprach Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.11.0609 +0100]:
For the benefit of a lurking newbie, what is FHS-accordance?
the filesystem hierarchy standard[1]. it specifies very exactly where
each file of a package *has* to go. that keeps the system very clean.
redhat doesn't do that, so
I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have
the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the
SYSV/BSD is a valid point)
Please feel free to add on, but lets keep the jokes
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
RedHat:
System layout is BSD
Nay. IMHO, SysV layout refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with
start or stop arguments, while BSD layout refers to some sort of
unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, both RH
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/ vs
/etc/rc.d/*)
what term would be correct?
Thus spake Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
RedHat:
System layout is BSD
Nay. IMHO, SysV layout refers to a
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2146 +0100]:
Debian:
Server Oriented
not necessarily... it's pretty alround if you ask me. and so is redhat,
Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production)
Publicly available bug archive for testing and
also sprach Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking, /etc/rc.d/* is the proper SysV way, but these days
even RedHat uses /etc/{init,rc?}.d
The /etc/rc.d/ construction is, AFAIK, a beast of Red Hat origin. Recent
version (starting with 7.x, maybe?) symlink /etc/rc.d/init.d and the
various rc#.d directories directly into /etc as a convenience for people
who are used to the more traditional SysV layout, but functionally it's
always
Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RedHat:
snip
Bug tracking system is not available for searching
While I get the impression that debian's bug system is more open and
more widely used, Red Hat does in fact have one at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ which, as you might
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 12:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision. At this point I just have
the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the
SYSV/BSD
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 04:25 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
RedHat:
No pre-installed install/update tool (apt)
in fact, if you want to use the update service, you'll pay!
autorpm
Never used it myself, but it is said to provide functionality similar to apt.
You can ftp updates for
* Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
I'm starting a Debian Vs Redhat comparision.
Oh no, not another distro war...
Debian:
Server Oriented
Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for
redhat
but requires considerable time/effort
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
c.f. debian ;)
Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^
--
martin; (greetings from the heart
On 09/01/02 Robert L. Harris did speaketh:
Debian:
Server Oriented
RedHat:
Desktop Oriented
Wow, I have three Debian desktops and one Debian server. I don't see how
Debian is not desktop oriented too. Hell, at least the complex desktop apps
install 10 times easier than crawling
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the
same
problem.
Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
Calyth
You can add yourself entries in the menus of your window manager.
I use fvwm2 and there are hooks in your .fvwmrc2 that allow you to
customize
your wm. Just read your fvwmrc2 or equivalent, I've never done it but it
should be very easy.
--
Vera Mickael Stagiaire
I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage this issue.
StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux software as
well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat Europe. I
almost choked when I read the following quote from him. There are
John Gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage
this issue.
StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux
software as
well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat
Europe. I
almost choked when I
Thanks for the tip!
On 28-Oct-1999, Salman Ahmed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PR == Peter Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PR Yes it does, but it lacks some of the advanced features of apt.
What advanced features of apt are you referring to ??
Some of the points I listed at the start of the email message.
Pete
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a
Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK
On 27-Oct-1999, Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far
the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to
get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest
one.
What
It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do. The
main difference is that you can only get updates from priority.redhat.com,
while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in an
X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day.
Peter Ross
It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do.
The main difference is that you can only get updates from
priority.redhat.com,
while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in
an
X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day.
Isn't
i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ??
i always have used dftp to update my stuff ..works great.
nate
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]--
Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/
Firetrail Internet Services
On 27-Oct-1999, aphro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ??
You can mix and match the locations where you get the .debs from
(including multiple CDs), and it will automatically pick up the latest
version.
You don't have to use dselect, you can do it
]
Sent: October 27, 1999 3:16 PM
To: William T Wilson
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
cannot think of any reason they would work
other than microsoft.
-paul
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999
1:07 AMTo: debian-user@lists.debian.orgSubject: just
curious about Debian vs Redhat
I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at
work).
Both
i choose debian because..
- it seems to have the largest number of developers
- it has BY FAR the most binary packages (2000+ in slink 4000+ in potato)
- it is well respected as being a stable and secure linux
i have not, do not, and will not choose redhat because ..
- many software products
[snip - BEWARE: out of context]
i hear mandrake is good though, some have said mandrake is 'redhat done
right' ..(somewhere along those lines)
[snip - BEWARE: out of context]
When an newbie asks me for a Linux distro I give them Mandrake
and tell them they can get Debian from me when they
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, aphro wrote:
- many software products are designed for it and don't support other
distributions, not just software(applications) but drivers too. examples
would be drivers for DPT raid controllers and 3com network adapters(the
DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a
Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel.
well,
On 26-Oct-1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at work).
Both have reasonable tools for managing software (dpkg for Debian, rpm for
Redhat).
I've also done upgrades for both Debian and Redhat.
The upgrade I did for Debian took several
* apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far
the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to
get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest
one.
What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat
Hi all,
I use Debian at home. At work we are gradually switching from Windows to Linux,
and a redhat
system (6 machines) has been running for about 3 months. In a couple of weeks I
will be taking over
as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been
over-customized, I
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Steve Stancliff wrote:
as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been
over-customized, I am going
to reinstall them.
am going to try and convince my boss that as long as we
are reinstalling, we
should switch to Debian. I have my list of
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
