Re: debian vs redhat
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 23:03, charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> > mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> > have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
> > and wow, am I impressed.
<Snip>
> Under redhat 9 I had a number of problems that caused server crashes
> about once a month. Under Debian stable (Sarge) everything is so
> solid..... Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
> computer ....
There were three things that caused me to take the Debian plunge in about
1998/1999.
1. RedHat's quality control dropped off, and their releases were very shoddy.
[1] I know people complain about Debian's "slow" release cycle, but this is
offset by having three releases online at all times.
2. apt was just coming online, and thus the installs got a little easier than
using dselect. And upgrades were a dream.
3. RPM hell. 'Nuff said.
I've been a happy Debian user ever since.
[1] RH's QC isn't a far sight better, even today. I have to use CentOS 4 (RHEL
4, community compiled) at work, and their released kernel, 2.6.9-22.EL,
shipped with reiserfs broken. To the point that the kernel wouldn't compile.
When I asked on the forums, they suggested I revert to 2.6.9-11.EL.
Management decided at that point that we could live without ReiserFS...
--
--Brad
========================================================================
Bradley M. Alexander |
IA Analyst, SysAdmin, Security Engineer | storm [at] tux.org
Debian/GNU Linux Developer | storm [at] debian.org
========================================================================
Key fingerprints:
DSA 0x54434E65: 37F6 BCA6 621D 920C E02E E3C8 73B2 C019 5443 4E65
RSA 0xC3BCBA91: 3F 0E 26 C1 90 14 AD 0A C8 9C F0 93 75 A0 01 34
========================================================================
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
Reply to: