|
Other BSD and UNIX/UNIX-like Any other flavour of BSD or UNIX that does not have a section of its own. |
View Poll Results: what linux distro do you use and/or like? | |||
Redhat / Centos | 24 | 15.09% | |
Suse | 4 | 2.52% | |
Debian | 36 | 22.64% | |
Slackware | 30 | 18.87% | |
Gentoo | 13 | 8.18% | |
Ubuntu | 23 | 14.47% | |
Others | 29 | 18.24% | |
Voters: 159. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
I have a mix at the house..
Desktop - Ubuntu-Hardy-64 Desktop2 - XP Email /Samba - ClarkConnect (run 3 of these) Protecting the LAN -- OpenBSD (run 3 of these) Depending on your skill level.. I would suggest -- Mepis - for very new users (great forum and most packages come from Ubuntu repositories) -- Ubuntu - the off shoots like Kubuntu and other xBuntus are not IMHO a bit behind curve.. Try out a few and then pick one.. or two .. rk
__________________
All posts sent on ReCycled Electrons... |
|
||||
The real pitfall isn't the more or less addon yum, but rpm. Some more seasoned users already know the term 'rpm hell' back from the nineties and its true today. rpm v5 (see OpenPKG) is more advanced, but Red Hat sticks with v4. Maybe we will see the more advanced version in future.
There are better package management systems (faster, more dependable and more error-free) like apt-get/aptitude, pacman in ArchLinux or portage in Gentoo. And if you like KISS, then FreeBSD ports or pkgsrc is the best option available. Anything rpm-based isn't bad at all, but inferior to any other available system. So it isn't a matter of mere choice, it's a matter of efficiency. Of course, it's not a blow against Centos or any other distro using rpm, but in the end most peoples choices are based on the package management system. People are choosing Slackware because of the lack of dependencies, some are choosing Debian because of the mighty apt-get/aptitude and its full-blown configuration and so on.
__________________
use UNIX or die :-) |
|
||||
One can manage rpms with the smart package manager, instead of yum. It works rather well, as a rule (though not always.)
Yum has greately improved rpm management from the 90's, but is still, in my humble opinion, slower than apt, even when using deltas, fastermirror and such. Apt will also have problems with broken dependencies and the same type of cycle, can't do this because we need that, blah blah. Pacman has really gotten fast--I don't follow the Arch list closely, but I vaguely remember them making some changes, and it became quite quick after that. |
|
||||
>Yum has greately improved rpm management from the 90's, but is still, in my humble opinion, slower than apt, even when using deltas, fastermirror and such.
You could have a look at Suse for example, there it is faster while using delta rpms for the downloads, but while installing it too. So there is room for advancement, but I don't see huge differences with yum. There are even enough alternatives compared to yum, like smart package manager. http://labix.org/smart
__________________
use UNIX or die :-) |
|
||||
I know RPM hell. I experienced it four years. I haven't touched an RPM-based distribution since then.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
||||
roflmbo!!!
Well, I'm probably lucky since I've never used an RPM based system long enough to actually install an RPM, unless you count installing an occasional linux rpm through FreeBSD ports. Just reading about the differences between rpm and dpkg a few years ago was enough to make me concentrate on Debians dpkg instead.
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
||||
They'll all have issues from time to time, be it apt, rpm, or even our beloved ports and packges. It's just that I happened to get bitten today.
Yum has improved, there's a skipbroken (skip-broken? Whatever) plugin so that one can do the upgrade--I thought it was automatic, but I guess I was wrong. |
|
||||
I'm migrating my desktop over to FreeBSD. I need the ability to tinker. It drives me crazy, if I can't. I'd use Slackware, but I'm not going that route this time around.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
use UNIX or die :-) |
|
||||
Ok, that was funny, at least to mutt users.
One doesn't find this very often with CentOS. One reason is because they do a great deal of QA before releasing anything, and tell you that if you customize the kernel or use a non-CentOS kernel and break it, you get to keep both pieces. Also, they're more like a Debian stable--the packages will often be older, but are only released after rigorous testing. Not perfect of course, especially for those like myself who use 3rd party repos, non standard kernels and the like, but as has been said in this thread, it's pretty reliable. |
|
||||
I'd much rather take Fedora Core or CentOS or Red Hat over Debian. At least they offer a certain degree of freedom.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
|||
I'm confused by your statement. Can you elaborate?
__________________
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by fleeing the scene of the accident! |
|
||||
Debian does what it's meant to very well, but I've always liked to fool around. When I was using Debian, I didn't find much to do. If you installed GDM, it was automatically added to the proper runlevel. Almost every single package was setup properly, requiring little to no user interaction and leaving little to no room for customization. Those are areas where Gentoo, Slackware, Arch, and FreeBSD simply rule. It's also an area where Fedora, Red Hat, and CentOS do better than Debian. That may have changed though, as I haven't touched Fedora in over two years.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
||||
Many people might call that a great feature ninjatux, although I do think you have a very good point.
One can always change things after it's installed, no?
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Adding apps to an obscure OpenBSD based distro | insomniadmx | OpenBSD Packages and Ports | 4 | 14th April 2009 12:10 PM |
linux compat and linux-only drivers | fbsduser | FreeBSD General | 9 | 22nd January 2009 05:42 PM |
Own FreeBSD Distro | anritsu | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 10 | 7th October 2008 03:02 PM |
linux-firefox 3 | cmcgoat | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 1 | 8th September 2008 07:06 PM |
Linux Kernel map | TerryP | Other BSD and UNIX/UNIX-like | 2 | 1st July 2008 05:33 AM |