|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] apt-get / rpm freshmeat article
|
I read the replies on http://freshmeat.net and on the plug list and the
call for only one package manager choice, or a system that doesn't
prompt you for the packages that you want that just loads the defaults
sounds a lot like the windows world that promotes what is installed is
what you get. In late 94 I put linux on my system because I wanted to
have a choice on how I want my system to operate. Linux gives the user
choices on everything from mail transport agents, mail readers,
browsers, and everything under the sun including what package management
system. With the early slackware system I started off with had no
package management system and only had gzipped tar files. At the time
slackware was the only game in town besides downloading all of the
source and compiling everything from scratch.
Shortly came Redhat then Debian systems that provided dependency
checking and upgradability without breaking the system on upgrades.
This was a great improvement over a pile of tarballs to install. As
Linux evolves, there is a move toward the novice where there is no
learning curve or system administration for the user. Also I find that
many of the new users think that everything depends specifically upon
the distribution that they have. For instance I see on this list, I'm
using X distribution and what can I do to fix X problem?'' I still am
in the favor of editing a lot of my own configuration files or at least
looking at them so I know what the package maintainer was thinking about
when he made the file.
I see the instance of x based install distributions that don't give the
option for a text based install where an XF86Config file could not be
automatically generated. This caused the system to quit the install
process. The concept of a non interactive install is a great idea, but
I personally enjoy the options and choices that Linux presently offers.
You now have many choices of distributions and package management
systems. Getting rid of the choices will lead to a buggy system that
has no room for innovation. As far as using apt-get I still hand do
everything with dpkg -i, whatever. But this is my choice since I
desire the control. There are several packages in the debian tree that
provide the dependency that is required. Some are located in the non-US
portion while the companion is may be in the main portion of the
distribution. Using the low level allows me to choose what specific
package I want on the system that I'm building.
Of course I realize that this is not for everyone, but I see great harm
in becoming like the Windows world where there is little choice for the
end user. Also I have read that the ``ease of use'' distributions have
open back doors that become security holes. For a home system this may
be acceptable, but for me this is not. I feel that as a group we should
be teaching the novices and new Linux users basic UNIX system
administration so they will become proficient in the installation and
administration of their home systems regardless of the distribution that
they are using. Included in this would be discussions on setting up
partitions, file system options, different methods of partition schemes
and down to what are the advantages and disadvantages of each
distribution.
With a basic knowledge of the basics the new user will become proficient
in editing a configuration file along with other tools. Now the novice
will no longer ask about what can I do with X distribution, but what
options are available to remedy a problem. But if Linux eventually
becomes like windows where the end user is totally shielded from the
configuration of the system with only the ability to use the front end
tools to configure their system they will be in the same fix as the
Windows users are today. When the front end tool doesn't provide the
thing necessary for the user the user will be at a total loss. This is
what I find many windows users have problems with. They don't know
where their saved files are, or even what their saved files are named.
This is where I see the Linux community going with the promotion of
tools that hide the user from the operation of the system.
Now many of you may say that every user has their home directory where
their data is stored, but if the end user is totally shielded from all
sys admin and the FSHS then they will be clue less like the windows
user. Also there is a lot of FUD about the Linux/UNIX command line that
is so hard to learn. I have people call me crying about their windows
system that they cannot find the window they are looking for. On their
Linux machine they know the command line and how to use a xterm to
accomplish what they desire to do. For instance a game like xconq has a
plethora of command line options including a lot of different games and
situations to play. But the default menu item is just a default game to
play. Using xconq -x from an xterm will give the user a lot of historic
games that include various battle scenes from WW1 and WW2, ancient
Greece, Rome, and etc. This is a great teaching tool for history. But
just using the default menu you will never know of all of the games and
options available.
Also, the comments on freshmeat brought that there is a total difference
in the philosophy between RedHat and Debian. One was primarily designed
for ease of install while the other was designed for upgradability.
Also the Debian system will prompt you when there is a new file format
for the configuration file. (Like Bind) Debian would not eradicate your
bind configuration file but told you that you needed convert your old
config to the new format. So this was a little work, but you don't want
your hand edited files blown away by an upgrade even if there is a new
format of the config file. The Debian default is to move the old config
file to a *.old or whatever. Some packages will even convert your old
config file to the new format for you.
I see the option of only one choice of package management system as a
very dangerous thing where we have thrown out our windows systems and
insisted that we want to have the choices on how our computers run and
not some faceless person dictating the look and feel of our systems.
I think that I have rambled on long enough this morning. I'd appreciate
any comments.
Have a great day :-)
LeRoy
Darxus@ChaosReigns.com wrote:
>
> http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/09/16/969163199.html
>
> "Mixing APT and RPM is an obvious step in making users of RPM-based
> distributions happier, and probably every vendor has considered
> implementing it."
>
> I was happy to read this, although I'd prefer that the deb & rpm package
> formats be merged.
> --
> http://www.ChaosReigns.com
--
Rev. LeRoy D. Cressy mailto:ldc@netaxs.com /\_/\
http://www.netaxs.com/~ldc ( o.o )
Phone: 215-535-4037 > ^ <
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|