Re: a Debian user's introduction to Redhat EL4?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:54 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:32:45AM +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
>>> I've got a great opportunity to promote opensource at my job by
>>> working on a BI project for Oxfam. But, I'm forced to use Redhat EL4
>>> and need to get up and running in a short time. I've been looking for
>>> a Debian user's introduction to Redhat EL4, but only found intro's in
>>> the other direction :-)
>>>
>>> I'm sure others on this list have had the same challenge
>> But this is debian. Why not ask RH for a transistion guide? One
>> doesn't ask Microsoft for help transitioning to Debian.
>>
>> Isn't RHEL a commercial product? Surely such a transition document
>> would come under "you get what you pay for...".
>
> I am sure that he really meant the other way, "a RHEL User's
> introduction to Debian (and its far superior tools and ways)"
>
> I hope. I really hope. But since he is is using RH, I am afraid not.
>
> In any case, RPM dependency hell, rings a big bell to me. YUM and
> up2date are know to have significant deficiencies.
>
> I've seen and do have some experience with RHEL and its wonderful
> rolling ABI and API problems, unlike Debian "Stable".
I wonder if it might not be designed this way on purpose. I mean how
better to sell support contracts when the product needs support because
the admins run into trouble? Kind of like the conspiracy theory that
says that a lot of the viruses come from the same people who make the
anti-virus programs, thus creating a business for themselves.
Now of course this can't really be true, but one does have to wonder.
Joe
- --
Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGHdxriXBCVWpc5J4RAhisAKDAynRlisbrFalkxOArmDpBni/WOACghsCH
uJ45JfBMK7AzkT+nU7gYeRA=
=bkk0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: