[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FreeBSD/ Redhat / Debian

At 5:20 PM +1100 1/23/04, Craig Sanders wrote:

debian isn't the only linux distribution to have a base system.  SLS had one.
Slackware had (still has?) one.  MCC (if anyone can remember it) had one.
these are all dating back to 1993 or 1994, so it's not exactly a new concept in the linux world.

Ah Slackware! My first Linux. Such happy memories. (*sniff...*) Maybe I should come home!

True, it is not a new concept, but it certainly has been superceded by the whiz-bang gee-whiz throw-everything-in distros here in The New World.

i think it's a bogus distinction. The implication he is making is that because there are separate & distinct upstream developers for MOST packages(*) in Linux, that means that these packages are not integrated into the system, that the act of packaging is just a quick-and-dirty compile to make a binary.

Point taken. The general notion of "compile it and throw it over the wall" is reductionist and out-of bounds. (In fact, I don't think any act of portage/packaging is ever "quick and dirty" -- though I wish it were.)

this may be true for (some packages in) RH and other distros, but it is
certainly not true for Debian.

Yes, that's the philosophy we love.

BTW, it's not even a true distinction. as you note yourself, the base packages ARE mostly from GNU, and they are as consistent with each other as the equivalents from BSD (but the GNU versions of common tools tend to be vastly superior).

Well, I don't know about "vastly" superior. They're self-consistent, of course, but they are still noisier and have that weird Stallman smell. Though I must say, because they have been "grown" rather than "designed" they often meet real-world needs better, no question.

Aw, crap, you're right, I like them better too. And I no longer notice the smell. They are superior.

Never mind. :-)

-- Ward

Reply to: