Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
> David Fokkema wrote:
>
>
>>Please, no. Debian stable is rock solid, something RedHat, in my
>>opinion, has never been able to achieve. I would love to hear from
>>people who are still running a RedHat system older than two years. I
>>know of a lot of people who are running such Debian systems and are
>>satisfied with it, apart from the usual thoughts: oh, would that I had
>>_both_ that stability _and_ the newer software. But still, they choose
>>stability.
>>
>>
>
> I've got three of these to care for: [summer@ts summer]$ rpm -q
> redhat-release redhat-release-7.3-1 [summer@ts summer]$
>
> and one running RHL 7.0 that I've already mentioned.
When you upgrade from 6.x to 7.x, or from 7.x to 8.x, can you do that?
Just upgrade, as opposed to reinstall? This was something that seemed
extraordinarily difficult when last I used RedHat, back in the dark
ages.
> None of them has given any particular problems. We even had up2date
> working on one of them, but for various reasons I didn't usually
> bother with up2date.
Why not? I'm not trying to poke holes or anything -- but a lot of RH
enthusiasts point to up2date as a great tool. Why don't you like it?
> fwiw I was much amused when I first tried Knoppix (it was, I think, a
> 3.2 beta but it might have been 3.1). The hardware detection is done
> with Red Hat's tools.
Why be amused? If RedHat licenses their stuff such that other systems
can use it, and it works, it would be foolish to reinvent the wheel.
That's one of the reasons people like open source so much.
While I don't have any specific examples, I would be quite surprised if
RedHat doesn't incorporate some of Debian's work, too. Again, it would
be foolish not to.
--
monique
Reply to: