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

RE: Switch to Red Hat?



Hi

 I grabbed all the 99.2 rpm's and alien -d'd them. there were error 
messages here and there, but the packages were debianized successfully 
(I had updated GTK and GLIB from the source to 1.1.11, so I didn't need 
those rpms). The first time I started 'gnome-session' I was flooded with 
messages "You are using png2.0.1, which has a known bug. use png1.0.1. 
After I got the rpm for the proper version (the version gnome 99.2 
wants), all went smooth....BUT....it seemed to slow down considerably. I 
mean WAY slow. 99.2 has some nice features, but I got rid of it and 
'downgraded' gnome to 30-2.
 I, too, suffered from 'should I move to RH' syndrome. Debian 
slink..(potato is too broken for my tastes....that and the fact that I'm 
doing dial up in Germany, so time on-line is at a premium for the cost) 
seems to get updated SO SLOWLY, whilest RH moves along at a brisk pace. 
But, I have tried out RH and Caldera OpenLinux, and for myself I can say 
that Debian is arranged the best, makes the most sense, and, if you 
stick to the .deb format for updates, will not get broken. A lot of 
stuff I expected to see in /home/user/ wasn't there....the X 
configuration files are all buried in /usr/X11R6/bin/X11/, versus the 
easy to find and use /etc/X11/, I can configure X under Debian...can't 
find the files on RH/Caldera, and the video drivers and other 
hardware-interface stuff in Debian 2 is, in my opinion, much better than 
what I get from RH and Caldera(especially caldera). Stick with 
Debian....updates may be slow, but you can be sure that anything you put 
on your system will work.

my 2cents

>From: "Paulo J. da Silva e Silva" <rsilva@ime.usp.br>
>Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:40:50 -0300
>To: "Jeff Miller" <jmiller@gfs.com>
>Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Subject: RE: Switch to Red Hat?
>
>Jeff Miller writes:
> > Hello Debian users,
> > 
> > I have been using the Debian distribution of Linux for many months 
now, but am starting to recognize deficiencies in available, up-to-date 
packages.  For example, the latest GNOME files are 0.99.2 but I cannot 
find .deb files for it anywhere.  The best I could find was 0.30.  This 
wouldn't be an issue if I could actually make my own, but many times the 
packages simply won't build for me.  The *other* major distribution, Red 
Hat, has .rpm files available for the GNOME project and they are pretty 
much up to date but I can't get them to install on my Debian system.  I 
am torn because I like the fact that Debian packages are easy to find 
and download, but it seems that Red Hat is more up-to-date.  Are there 
others that have found this as a problem?  Can someone convince me not 
to *cross over*?  I am tempted to just run out and purchase Red Hat 5.2 
and wipe my Debian system and leave it all behind me.  Is there an 
alternative?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Jeff 
> > 
>
>Dear Jeff,
>
>Do you have other examples? I really agree with you that, at this 
moment, it
>is easier to fing .rpm's gnome files. But you can't forget how much 
effort
>RedHat is putting on Gnome, so it is natural that they should be ahead 
in this
>arena (on the other hand I think "in the old days of 0.30" Jim Pick 
have
>released Gnome .deb's before RedHat had done her .rpm's). If this 
problem is
>restricted to Gnome, wait a little, till 1.0 is out and there'll be no 
need to
>package a new version once a week. I am sure Debian will have gnome 1.0 
in
>their unstable distribution preaty soon.
>
>Meanwhile, I am planning to try using alien to install gnome 0.99.2. 
Have
>anyone tried this? My idea is installing libgtk1.1.12 and libblib1.1.12
>(required by the new gnome) from unstable (they are already packaged, 
as you
>can see Debian can be fast too) and the give 0.99.2 a try.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Paulo.
>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
< /dev/null
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Reply to: