Distro comparison

[David Kramer]

On Monday 20 October 2003 15:57, josephc at etards.net wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, David Kramer wrote:
> > As I've said, I need to upgrade my server's software.  I'm just done
> > with Red Hat.  I've been using Red Hat on my server since version 4.0,
> > but they finally pushed me over the edge.  My decision is a tough one,
> > because my box is both my firewall/server and my workstation, so the
> > mix of software is a little different than what most people need.
>
> Can I ask what exactly you dislike about Red Hat? The most common
> complaint I hear is dependency issues, but up2date and apt4rpm have all
> but eliminated that concern.

- The mangling of KDE and Gnome to the point that the two companies are now 
on fighting terms.  I can no longer upgrade KDE on my Red Hat 7.3 box from 
either Red Hat or KDE, though there are third parties

- Their refusal to put programs on their distro that MPAA/RIAA might maybe 
kinda sorta say is a bad thing one day

- The compiler version screwups in recent releases

- The new Fedora Project model scares me.  I don't know what it will do to 
the quality and consistency of the releases.

- The demotion of the personal user from their lifeblood to a vast fleet of 
testers for their *real* release, as a side effect of the above

- No more boxed sets

- Their graphical tools to maintain your box are largely undocumented


> > FreeBSD would be the greatest departure from Red Hat.  It would also
> > offer a cleaner kernel and possibly more efficient operation.  The
> > ports system seems better than RPM's because I hate binary databases
> > for system configuration.  I wish I knew more about FreeBSD, but what
> > I've read about it I like.
> > Questions:
> > - Are ports for new versions of software generally available soon after
> >   release?
>
> Yes and no. Popular software is generally ported within days. The more
> obscure, though, the longer you'll have to wait.

Good to know.   Maybe I should just poke around them.  I assume there's a 
list with versions and dates on their website.

> > - How different is it to maintain than Linux?
>
> Not very. There is almost no SysV relation (which, despite claims to the
> contrary, does have some influence on Linux).

Meaning no /etc/rc.d stuff?  What other things are different?

> > - Is all the talk about extra security and stability a bunch of crap? 
> > I know it certainly used to be true, but is it still true?
>
> It really is rock solid. Linux is more cutting edge, while FreeBSD is
> tried and true. That's why hardware support tends to be months or even
> years behind linux. That's not to say I have a FreeBSD box with more than
> a year between reboots. In fact, people who boast about that are probably
> running the most insecure systems not named Windows. You'll be a little
> thrown the first time you recompile the entire OS, rather than just the
> kernel.

Hmm, the hardware support might be a problem.  The chipset on my onboard USB 
is fairly new, and it's one of the reasons I want to upgrade.  I can't get 
7.3 to work with it right, so my UPS can't tell the server when the sky is 
falling.

Thanks.
--
DDDD   David Kramer         david at thekramers.net       http://thekramers.net
DK KD  
DKK D  Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
DK KD  
DDDD