On Tuesday 16 November 2004 02:27 am, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 01:05, steve szmidt wrote:
> > The slickest of them all has to be the latest SuSE. Slick, slick! Not a
> > single odd things sticking out really.
>
> SuSE has always been the kitchen sink, get it done, commercial distro.
> Linus has favored it himself -- at least in years prior.
Yes, that's why I decided to check it out a few years ago.
> > However, I stopped using SuSE after getting fedup with the different
> > (from RH) configuration model. Servers I had up on it did not conform
> > with RH and made certain updates fall behind while that got fixed.
>
> Prior to Fedora'izing, Red Hat(R) Linux moved slowly to Linux Standard
> Base (LSB) adoption. Debian and SuSE were much quicker. Now that
> Fedora(TM) allows non-Red Hat paid members on its steering committee to
> help set direction for Red Hat's release of Fedora(TM) Core, this has
> changed significantly -- specially in CL4 (Fedora Core 2+).
>
> As someone who has had to maintain home directories and login scripts
> that might be mounted from AIX, Linux, Solaris and even SCO, slight
> differences between Red Hat and SuSE are far more manageable. ;->
Yes, that would be an understatement.
> > For a non techie desktop user it must be swell though. : )
>
> Conformity and uniformity is always nice. But SuSE followed LSB better
> than Red Hat before its Fedora'izing.
>
> > Mandrake has a pretty good security model for online servers, and is
> > compatible with RH. But I've discovered some odd beta s/w in it's KDE
> > (Quanta).
>
> I won't comment on Mandrake because I have real problems with their lack
> of integration and regression testing of releases -- at least through
> version 9 (and especially from version 6 through 8). But I have
> dissected this prior, and will leave it to those prior comments --
> especially since I have not tracked their development over the last few
> releases.
Yes that's exactly what I've discovered in their V 10
> People debate whether or not Freedomware means it is more stable and
> compatible, and I think Microsoft is both right and wrong. They are
> wrong in the fact that the software itself is not reliable, but they are
> right in the fact the software has to be "integration and regression
> tested" as part of a whole distribution. That's where it's up to the
> testing of the distros, and I prefer Debian and Fedora-based
> distributions.
>
> > I hate Fedora for it's lack of mp3 support etc,
>
> Corporations feel the opposite because both Debian and Fedora don't
> install such "questionably licensed" packages without you knowing about
> it. But if you really want such things "out-of-the-box," check out the
> IDG "Dummies" Fedora(TM) Core books which include those packages.
Sure but I don't really worry about that right now.
> Once the new, unified Anaconda-YUM installer/tools replace the various,
> legacy Anaconda and disseparate tools, it will be very easy to install
> MP3 directly inside of the installer, even though it's not on the CD.
> Fedora has a long way to go before it's the fully community that Debian
> is. But so far they have gone much farther in little time than I
> predicted.
>
> > but it's not very hard to add afterwords. And as RH test bed you get up
> > to date stuff. But now I want some more excitement in the GUI and I
> > think I'm just being silly but Fedora does not seem as exciting as it
> > used to be.
>
> When was Red Hat _ever_ about "exciting?" ;->
>
> Fedora(TM) Core will _never_ be any more "bleeding edge" than Red Hat(R)
> Linux was. In fact, the ".0" revisions are typically full of "boring"
> ABI (GCC/GLibC/kernel) changes than "damn exciting desktop stuff!"
>
> Tiemann doesn't seem a reason to change what makes them money and, in
> his own words in the recent LinuxQuestions interview, what is best left
> to other distributions. There are plenty of new desktop developments
> based on Fedora as their are for Debian.
>
> > Could be the fact that it does not have KDE 3.3 which I'm really sold
> > on right now. : )
> >
> >From the release notes for Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1):
>
> http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/3/i386/os/RELEASE-N
>OTES-en.html "Fedora Core 3 contains the following changes:
> GCC 3.4
> GNOME 2.8
> KDE 3.3"
Except they did not ship 3.3. : ( I have it one a drive and since I'm not
using it it must be the why.
> But had KDE been a few more months later, I'm sure it would have been
> pushed back. Again, refer back to my whole "integration/regression
> testing" spiel. If Red Hat hasn't had a couple of months with it, they
> won't ship it.
>
> Furthermore, they don't update most applications mid-revision. But
> typically if you upgrade to the X.MAX(Y) revision, you will get most of
> the latest goodies. But still not anything that has been released
> sooner than the last 2-3 months.
>
> > Gentoo, Knoppix, MEPIS all have interesting features but currently I'm
> > looking for 2.6.x, KDE 3.3 and a decent installer that supports as many
> > custom partitions as I want, does not easily make you format existing
> > partitions and will work well from the hard disk, with ample prepared
> > packages.
>
> Kinda scratching my head here because that sounds like Fedora Core 3 to
> me.
Hehe. I think MEPIS only allow you to have three partitions, and knoppix part
s/w got me in trouble. I'm not quite sure because I went through a great
number of distros in short time trying to find one that really did it for me.
> Don't get me wrong, I like "ports" OSes like FreeBSD and Gentoo.
>
> I also like the "liveCD" approach of Knoppix (although most builds have
> serious issues with included and unlicensed software).
Knoppix had a really interesting looking desktop in the previous release (or
two).
> MEPIS is getting rave reviews, but some people have been extremely
> critical of how "protective" the author is being with his work (I don't
> get into those arguments, but I do prefer "raw" Debian and Fedora for a
> reason ;-).
MEPIS is not bad, but annoyed the hell of me on some points. Fantastic work by
one man though.
> > I'll try Debian just because I've not had a pure Debian before. URPMI and
> > YUM are pretty good and so is apt. (Not sure how they rate next to each
> > other.)
>
> APT seems to be far more mature than YUM for Fedora, and I haven't met
> anyone who disagrees with me yet. The original Fedora Project (U of
> Hawaii Fedora.US) became the obvious merge target for Red Hat because of
> the majority of their APT/YUM, especially APT. Once I switched away
> from FreshRPMS.NET to Fedora.US, I had full APT bliss.
>
> But I leave it to Seth Vidal and the Fedora Steering committee to push
> YUM to the same level -- especially in the installer. We'll see, until
> then, I prefer APT for Fedora.
>
> > My first distro was Slackware. But then RH came out with RPM and I never
> > went back.
I used RH in many businesses and paid for every third or so release. I'm sure
I have CD's from V 1 or 2. I got a book with a CD in it and that was cool. I
could not believe my luck in finding a whole OS with several compilers etc.
Then I knew I had gone to heaven when I discovered that for an additional $30
I could get 4 more CD's!
> I started with Yggdrasil, then Slackware and then Red Hat. Many of my
> current files are still based on an original Red Hat Linux 4.2 install.
> I basically upgraded until 7.1 this way, then re-installed with SGI XFS,
> and then re-installed 7.3 when I went back to Ext3. After upgrades to
> 8.0 (CL3.0) and 9 (CL3.1), I did "apt-get dist-upgrade" to both Fedora
> Core 1 (CL3.2 -- cake) and now Fedora Core 2 (CL4.0 -- 2 issues because
> of the CL3 -> CL4 "version change").
Yes, I went back to Ext3 after looking at various issues.
> [ For more on my FC1/CL3.2->FC2/CL4.0 "apt-get dist-upgrade," see:
> http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/2004-August/039896.html ]
>
> Once Fedora Extras are built for Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1), I'll "apt-get
> dist-upgrade" to FC3.
>
> > KDE 3.3 on 2.6 is really FAST! So I'm more looking to see who will
> > deliver that combo to build on.
>
> Fedora Core 3? ;->
Again, I don't think it shipped with 3.3.
> Seriously now, Fedora Core 3 is the ".1" point revision of the same
> version as Fedora Core 2 (which is the ".0"/early adopter).
--Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:25:32 EDT