Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote:
> A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands
> to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be
> (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from
> my explorations, fits this definition.
>
> So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the
<snip>
No problem with me provided that third party non-free software,
i.e., Oracle, Infomax, etc are easily ported to Debian, FBSD,
NetBSD, Slackware, etc.
Different distros offer different adminstrative tools, and different
packages. Distros offering different administrative tools is a good
thing IMHO; the tools for newbies should be different than
for the guru. However, if I want to run Oracle,
I do not want to have to switch to RH.
If third party software vendors (that do not provide source)
had a tree (like teTeX) and have envionmental variables point to parts
of tree, it seems that any distro can easily include the software
in a packge. Is it that simple? If so, are the vendors doing this?
King Lee
Reply to: