Re: Debian, too easy?
Tom Cook sez:
} On 0, Leo Spalteholz <leo@thewoodpecker.ca> wrote:
[...]
} > This is all great and thats the main reason I use debian but am I
} > actually learning anything? I've been running debian on my desktop
} > and server for over a year now and know how to configure it quite
} > well but I still dont really feel I know linux. There are so many
} > debian tools that automagically take care of system administration
} > that I think I would be lost without them. While I wouldnt want to
} > give all this up I also wouldn't want to find that what I know about
} > linux is totally useless for any distro other than debian.
Regrettably, this is true of most distributions. Different distros
compete (using the term loosely) based on three things: 1) method of
configuration/use, 2) software management, and 3) support. Debian is
actually closer to other Unix variants in its configuration methods than
many other distros (RedHat comes to mind). Yes, there may be a tool for
configuring X, but it ultimately writes a config file in a standard
place (somewhere in /etc, usually) and most of the tools even tell you
what they are writing to where. You have the option of looking at the
written config file and learning from it, or even modifying it by hand
once you've seen the results of certain choices in a tool. I would say
that Debian gives you the power to deal with bare linux without forcing
you to do so, whereas other distros either require you to deal with the
configs files alone (e.g. Slackware) or layer it away so thoroughly that
changing something in a config file may or may not be sufficient to
change the behavior (e.g. RedHat). Debian is a nice middle ground.
} > I really dont have much experience with other linux distros so maybe
} > its not that different but it feels like I'm in a pretty
} > debian-specific world.
Yes and no. If you make a point of learning just what those tools are
doing, you will be gaining experience about unix in general and linux in
particular. You may find that 100% of that knowledge does not carry over
to every distro, but if you can handle Debian and know what those tools
are doing for you, you will find it easier to work with any linux or
unix. Note, but the way, that it is for reasons like this that people
have favorite distributions; yeah, I *could* administer RedHat or
Mandrake or SuSE or even Slackware, but I find Debian to be a better
choice.
} > What do you think, could I get away with putting Linux on my resume or
} > is my debian experience too limited?
Certainly from a development end, if you can develop software under
Debian then you can develop under any linux. If it is a matter of system
administration, if you intend to be a sysadmin then you'd better be
capable of learning any Unix-ish system, even if it's Ultrix or Irix
4.x.
} Come on, surely this is some sort of 'troll in reverse'? This list
} has been flamed plenty of times complaining that debian is too hard,
} too low level, too unfriendly, but I've *never* seen someone complain
} that its too easy...
It is a valid concern that if one is trying to learn "Linux" one should
actually be learning things that carry over from distro to distro. This
is one reason why I find RedHat so frustrating. This is also one reason
why the LSB came into being.
} My feeling is that if you know debian then you'll figure out other
} distros pretty quickly (and probably figure out how much you want your
} debian back, but that's another story).
My thoughts exactly.
} Tom
--Greg
Reply to: