Re: Debian x Redhat

["Mark C" <lists@funkypenguin.net>]

>> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 14:20, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote:
>
>  and it was completely useless. Because the
> repositories are so small (again, because the original company does not
> support it), that it is useless. Only a hanfull of applications, can
> work with apt-rpm.

It really depends, I used to be a Pure Redhat user (from 5.1 - 9), but as
already mentioned, got sick of their product life cycle, they generally
only care about their enterprise customers, there are major, major
problems with rpm from versions => 8.0, rpm locks and can do many damaging
things.

My last straw can on a production server, running up2date -u (their
official updater), it upgraded glibc, then locked the database and
crashed, this left me with parts of the old glibc-common and parts of the
new glibc, it then proceded to restart ssh, thus locking me out, forcing
me to login again, same happended, now I was faced with a 200 mile journey
to actually go the the machine (ssh only allow so many users to connect,
security).

I had to then try and recover the remains of the glibc stuff, not pretty.

I have enter several bug reports, starting from 8.0, still not fixed (but
hey there is a workaround!..mmmm).

Redhat does have more polised GUI based configuration tools, but if u are
running servers then u do not need X anyway, and tends to be more cutting
edge, but there are things like, they do not ship/support Apache 1.3.x
anymore from => 8.0, only Apache2 (debian has both), their kernels are
patched to hell, and *ARE* slow, standard its fairly secure, only
generally listening on loopback interfaces for services

I used to use apt locally for all our servers, using one to rsync the
updates everyday, then apt-get the required updates from our local
repository (saving on bandwith), so for this its great,

There are a few repositories out there:

    * http://apt.freshrpms.net/
    * http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/
    * http://www.linux.cz/apt-rpm/
    * http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/apt/
    * http://ftp.uninett.no/pub/linux/apt/
    * http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/
    * http://redhat.usu.edu/
    * ftp://mirror.pa.msu.edu/apt/
    * http://apt.42h.de/
    * http://apt-rpm.codefactory.se/
    * http://apt-rpm.xinus.net/
    * http://people.ecsc.co.uk/~matt/repository.html
    * http://utelsystems.dyndns.org/

But Debian has loads more, 3rd party and standard, they tend to keep track
and still maintain older versions of software, they *ASK* when preforming
post installation scripts (glibc update anyone!).

The Standard, i.e Stable version is just that *STABLE*, I've switched
around 4 weeks ago, and apart from a few quirks, I'm loving it.

Faster, Easier to maintaine, and very, very small base install
(RedHat 425MB min, Debian Woody: 125 - 150MB)

The one advantage that Redhat does have, is commercial support, large
companies like this, so that is why companies like Redhat, SuSE, tend to
go towards the corporate users or migrating companies, as they like the
comfort blanket of available support for the suits
(the techies still use the mailing lists)

(but I dare say there is commercial Debian support as well).

Anyway Thats my unbiased opinion (hopefully)

Mark