Re: Periodic distro question
Having migrated from SuSe not that long ago, I can't quite subscribe to your
points. Most of what you critise is what made me change.
On Wednesday 27 March 2002 12:23, Tom Allison wrote:
> I am a current user of Debian.
> I picked it from Slackware because I was in favor of a faster install
> process than slackwares. Of course I had fewer questions in Slackware
> because I was always RTMing. Debian makes it easier to not do that.
Debian comes with a lot of documentation if one cares to install it. And,
most important, you can always use the original docs (of packages / programs)
for configuration, which is not true on any other dist i'm aware of. Most try
to solve everything their way, while debian seems to be pretty transparent
towards the original (the author's) way of configuring a package / software.
That is, if you read the author's docs you are able to configure the
software. Try this on a SuSe or Red Hat ...
> I also picked it because the defaults were more secure (than other
> options at the time) and it was an excellent choice for getting
> notebooks configured with apm & pcmcia.
Well, this is and was always supported by all major dists. So far there is
_no_ laptop-specific distribution i have heard of, and all the majors do
quite a good job in supporting laptop-specific hardware (SuSe even installs
pcmcia when one uses a webserver configuration ...)
However, all distributions fail in providing slim, laptop-designed defaults
offering only _basic_ features. So does debian, given the dependencies of
some packages. Why would I need sshd on a laptop only intended to be used as
a ssh-client? Of course this is one package, but to be laptop-specific it
would have to be stripped of any server related parts.
> But there are a few specifics that are really bothering me and now I'm
> wondering if there are not other distros which would keep me happy.
>
> ALSA, or any realiable sound support is probably the one thing that
> has never worked on this IBM A21m.
ALSA itself is not to be called stable, so this is hardly to blame on debian.
Once again, at least one can use the ALSA developer's ideas of configuration
on debian, which is _not_ true for other dists.
> At this point I'm actually thinking of going back to SlackWare or
> possibly looking into RedHat because of the extensive bloat that
> Debian has shown and the latency of the distributions.
>
> One thing that I'm really frustrated in right now is that the Debian
> Stable is whoefully behind everything else on the internet.
> Technically, I cannot run the XFree 3.3.6 that is provided.
I run 'testing' in a production environment (install once, keep it running
for daily use without major changes) with no problems at all. The whole idea
about releases should maybe be put on discussion, because nobody is using a
'stable' for daily use. Linux is evolving to quickly to ever be able to
release a stable _and_ up-to-date (in terms of features and hardware-support)
distribution. IMHO there should only be two 'releases', both of which to be
constantly updated: a testing (cutting edge) and a normal (stable enough)
version. After all, what's the point in running a XFree 3.3.6 with let's say
800x600 when one could run a XFree 4.1.xx with 1024x768, even if this crashes
sometimes?
> But migration to Testing has resulted in a cascade of updated
> packages, many of whom overwrite my existing configurations. This
> really pisses me off to no end. Combine this with the continued
> abstraction levels of Debian and it is now getting harder to use
> Debian and understand other distributions as well. This niche
> specialization may have won arguements with Debian, but it's at a high
> price with respect to interchangeable configurations. I may be able
> to fix something on Debian, but not on any other distro.
Configuration is _always_ interchangable, if you stick with the developers
ideas. It only gets complicated once you try to do everything your own way,
such as with SuSe. But you're still able to switch of all the distro's
configuration, so where's the problem?
> Is this a common digression between the distros?
For me this is the main reason in running debian.
> I know that years ago, when I used Suse, I saw the same level of
> abstraction creeping in and promptly dumped it when I was unable to
> keep anything configured with the Suse Configurator. I don't know how
> this has changed in the three years.
It did not get any better. Everything is ok if you stick with common
configurations, but once you need something especialy adapted to your needs
SuSe's (and all other's) config-tools will just leave you alone in the middle
of the desert.
> RedHat had a similar problem. Slackware was just very hand-rolled.
I tryed not so long ago to enable remote root login on a Red Hat, and it took
me ages. So there still seems to be the same problem around. Never used
Slackware though, so I don't know about it.
If you're a 'everyday' user of linux like me, that is _not_ a developer _nor_
a administrator, the main problem of _all_ distributions it that there is no
clear distinction between server and client editions. Running CUPS on a
laptop requires far to many programmes, most of them intended to be used in a
networked environment, so do many other packages. At the end this is enabling
my laptop to serve as a print- and file- and whatever-server for the whole
local network, just to be able to print and have acces to a samba-share. I
utilise only the 10-15% of all offered functionality, but there are no slim
packages offering just those. One always has to install a fully enabled
environment in order to print or do a database query on a remote server.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: