This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: RE: Benefits of using RH6.1 as a workstation over other distributions
From: "Paul M. Foster" <paulf@quillandmouse.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:40:11 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jeff Graves wrote:
> three letters...
>
> r p m
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Rocco [SMTP:frocco@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 11:53 AM
> To: redhat-list@redhat.com
> Subject: Benefits of using RH6.1 as a workstation over other
> distributions
>
> Hello,
>
> Newbie question as to the benefit of using RH6.1 vs other
> distributions
> like debian.
>
> I noticed that debian won in linuz journal as most popular.
>
> I don't want to start a war, just trying to decide on the best
> distribution for me.
>
> I have looked at RH, Corel, Caldera and Stormix.
>
Corel and Stormix are both Debian variations. Debian probably has the
technically better packaging technology, but it is not as widely
used. Debian has an excessively tedious install and does not come with
Linuxconf or other admin tools that Red Hat does. If you want to twiddle
config files in vi, use Debian. However, Debian takes a long time between
versions and does massive amounts of testing before a release. They also
probably have the best adherence to "standards". I used to say, "Real men
use Slackware". Now I'd have to say this holds true for Debian.
Caldera is (as one of my friend put it) "brittle". Install is very slick,
but afterwards....
Red Hat has a very reasonable install, most of the tools are fairly
good. If you want no muss no fuss, Red Hat is probably one of the
best. (SuSE is excellent, but their tech support is abominable.)
===
Subject: Re: RH6.1 Standard or Deluxe?
From: Hidong Kim <hkim@nwrain.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:25:03 -0800
Hi,
As long as this thread keeps getting spun, I've always been curious
about the difference between Red Hat and Debian. What is it? I've
never used Debian. Except for a very brief experience with slackware,
I've used only Red Hat and Mandrake. The difference between Red Hat and
Mandrake is that Mandrake has more broken stuff.
Hidong
P.S. Red Hat support is exceptionally lame. When I was talking with the
phone rep, I could almost hear the burgers frying in the background.
===
Subject: Re: RH6.1 Standard or Deluxe?
From: "Paul M. Foster" <paulf@quillandmouse.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:43:36 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Hidong Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As long as this thread keeps getting spun, I've always been curious
> about the difference between Red Hat and Debian. What is it? I've
> never used Debian. Except for a very brief experience with slackware,
> I've used only Red Hat and Mandrake. The difference between Red Hat and
> Mandrake is that Mandrake has more broken stuff.
>
1) Debian has _no_ non-free software. (This means, incidentally, that they
don't include Pine!)
2) Debian is extremely rigid about adhering to "standards" like FHS. (This
is actually a good thing.)
3) Debian uses .deb instead of .rpm package files. Opinions vary on that.
You can, however, also use .rpm files.
4) Debian has an incredibly tedious install, all character mode.
5) Debian does make updates simple and smooth. (Red Hat does not.)
6) Debian has no commercial company behind it. It is generated, tested and
put out by hundreds of volunteers across the internet. As such, it isn't
subject to the vaguaries and whims of large corporations.
7) New versions take a very long time to come out.
8) Support? Same as the Red Hat list. Debian's list may be slightly more
active.
9) Because of the volunteer testing and such, Debian may be more stable
than Red Hat.
10) Debian has very little in the way of admin tools. Prepare to hack
configuration files. (Real Men Use Debian.)
11) Typically, cost is less than Red Hat. Of course that depends on how
you get it. But you won't spend $79 on it, that's for sure.
Bottom line: If you can deal with the tedious install and you're more than
intimate with the way Linux works (and not scared of config files), Debian
is very stable and upgrades easily. Likewise, if you're afraid of the
vaguaries of large corporations like Red Hat or SuSE, Debian may be for
you.
Paul M. Foster
===
Subject: Re: RH6.1 Standard or Deluxe?
From: Jack <ifup@yifan.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:40:50 -0500
> 1) Debian has _no_ non-free software. (This means, incidentally, that they
> don't include Pine!)
debian has non-free packages available too. and pine 4.21 debian
packages have been built and downloadable. (although I donot use pine
any more. try MUTT! )
> 3) Debian uses .deb instead of .rpm package files. Opinions vary on that.
> You can, however, also use .rpm files.
big difference to me: no deps problem with apt-get, which
finds everything needed for installing certain package.
> 4) Debian has an incredibly tedious install, all character mode.
however, if you are a true administrator, you'd like it. gui
installation of rh6.1: isn't it a joke?
> 7) New versions take a very long time to come out.
what do you want? reliability or rushing into something which needs to
fix at the same day of release.
just MHO:)
jack
====
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] i686 only Redhat Distribution - PRE-BETA RPMS Avail.
From: Allen Bolderoff <allen@gist.net.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:56:49 +1030
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Cc: RedHat Announce MailingList <redhat-announce-list@redhat.com>
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] i686 only Redhat Distribution - PRE-BETA RPMS Avail.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
We are proud to announce a PRE-BETA release of i686 compiled RPMS for Redhat
6.1
Feel free to test them.
YOU MUST UPGRADE TO gcc 2.95.2 in order for these RPMS to work.
DO NOT DOWNLOAD THESE PACKAGES UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO RUN THEM ON A
PENTIUM-PRO, PII, PIII or Higher.
Of course these packages are PRE BETA and do not have any warranty or
otherwise given as to their suitability or otherwise.
We are now incorporating them into an ISO image, and hope to have a BETA
release sometime towards late Jan 2000/Early Feb 2000
see http://linux.netnerve.com/i686/6.1/ for more details.
Allen Bolderoff
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Allen Bolderoff <allen@gist.net.au>
LNC - Redhat and Linux, help and commentary http://linux.netnerve.com
CTPC - Caffeine - get it here: http://www.coffee-tea-pots-cups.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] i686 only Redhat Distribution - PRE-BETA RPMS Avail.
From: Jeff Mings <jeffm@lava.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:26:18 -1000
Hi All,
I believe the point was made earlier that these binaries will also run on
celerons and AMD Athlons (K7s) as well.
-Jeff
===
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] i686 only Redhat Distribution - PRE-BETA RPMS Avail.
From: Eric Wood <eric@interplas.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 16:14:09 -0500
When Allen Bolderoff mentioned the "higher" in "RUN THEM ON A PENTIUM-PRO,
PII, PIII or Higher", he was subconsiously refering to the Athlon. :)
===
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] i686 only Redhat Distribution - PRE-BETA RPMS Avail.
From: Charles Galpin <cgalpin@lighthouse-software.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:39:29 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Michael George wrote:
> On Jan 20, Eric Wood wrote:
> > When Allen Bolderoff mentioned the "higher" in "RUN THEM ON A PENTIUM-PRO,
> > PII, PIII or Higher", he was subconsiously refering to the Athlon. :)
>
> Thank you for that information. I was wondering about that... BTW, is the
> Athalon a good processor, or does it have "issues"? I am going to be looking
> into a new computer, and the i686 RHL distro might be enough to cause me to
> get a more advanced processor...
working great here (500mhz) on a stock 2.2.5-15 RH6.1 kernel.
===