On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:48, Logan Tygart wrote:
> Hmmm. Precisely my point. I will stick with Debian, since everyone
> else wants to emulate it.
You'll get absolutely no argument from me here. Debian is a solid
distribution choice. And any Debian-based distro can have the same.
Red Hat is trying to do the same for RPM distributions that Debian has.
So far, there's a lot of interest -- especially with a lot of distros
previously being Red Hat Linux based. There was a lot of initial
assumption to the contrary, even my own, but Fedora has proven
otherwise. Many of the lesser, traditionally Red Hat Linux-based
distros were considering Debian, but have now moved "back" to Fedora
Core now that they've seen it's no different.
Debian shows the community distribution model works well. Red Hat is
showing that it can solve issues for commercial entities as well.
People forget that Red Hat has certain limitations to what it can do
that 100% community distros can avoid. It has nothing to do with
"answering to shareholders" either, especially since so many are GPL
advocates.
It should be noted that I _do_ wish more corporations would buy into
Ian's Progeny approach to commercial distributions. The idea that they
are not "fixed" releases, but distributions should empower companies to
do their own configuration management (largely because commercial
software doesn't remove that requirement either). But as Red Hat found
out with Red Hat Linux 6.2"E", corporations prefer the "separate, 5 year
product" that SuSE (_not_ Red Hat) introduced _first_.
> Hmmm. I would dispute this. Apt is a Debian artifice. How can
> something as new as Fedora make such a bold claim?
Oh, you read that wrong (sorry I wasn't clear). Not APT-RPM versus
APT-DPKG, but APT-RPM versus YUM-RPM. That was my statement.
Many people, including myself, keep scratching our head on why Red Hat
and the Fedora Steering Committee seem so dedicated to YUM. I would hit
Seth up but I'm afraid he's already been asked this enough times.
> I would argue apt works best for what it was written for... a front end
> to dpkg.
APT-RPM doesn't have all the features of APT-DPKG. It's getting very
close, but not all. I was talking about APT-RPM v. YUM-RPM, at least
for Fedora. Again, sorry I wasn't clear.
> Of course, I haven't used a rpm distro for sometime, so apt might seem
> like a great thing to someone who hasn't used it for years.
Every distro is moving towards more open community-based distribution.
Fedora is merely Red Hat's answer. Red Hat was already going in this
direction. The name change (again, largely for trademark reasons), was
just the end tail of it all.
With Fedora Core, I don't see things getting "left out" like I did late
in Red Hat Linux 7.3, 8.0 and 9, because the "suits" feared it competed
with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's not a product from the "suits"
standpoint, so there is no competition.
Otherwise, Fedora Core uses the same proven and trusted release model as
Red Hat Linux prior -- assuming, of course, you trusted it (I can't say
anything if you didn't ;-).
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 17:29:28 EDT