|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
> Yes. Portmap and other things (X Font Server) not really needed are
> installed by default. It is due to the dependecy checking being overly
> paranoid I think. Some things like vlock should be installed but are not by
> default, for what reason again, I am unsure. This however is only a small
> issue that one chkconfig command can disable and rpm comand can delete and
> uninstall. I guess if you find certain stuff to always be on that delete
> list you could write a quick shell script.
I'd prefer that it wasn't installed at all. If I have to make a lot of
scripts to fix things that the installer should have taken care of then
maybe it's better to get a better installer.
> > 2. annoying package manager. up2date seems to me, to be a last ditch
> > attempt to suck money out of my pocket. the registration is really a pain
> > in the ass especially if you want to have this installed on a bunch of
> > machines. If anyone knows how to install rh w/o registering, please let me
> > know.
>
> Hmmm... You do not have to register the RH8 box, ever. You do if you want
> up2date to work. Redhat gives you a basic subscription to one system per a
I'd prefer for it to work out of the box. I have a few computers and I
don't think it's worthwhile to click all these boxes and fill out a spammy
form to get basic updates on FREE software.
> login name for free. For places that have three or more RH boxes it actually
> is a great value to let the Redhat Network service (the rhn daemon on the RH
> system will periodically check with Redhat network to see if there are
> updates it needs to be secure) figure out what must have updates should be
> installed. Could you disregard up2date and install new or updated rpms
When there's a better free equivalent it's not a great value.
> yourself? Yes. I teach people I install servers for how to use it because
> that is the type of user it s designed for. Up2date is commandline
> scriptable as well.
I teach people how to use up2date, too, b/c that's what they expect, and
they pay me. I won't spend time pushing a compeditor's products on my own
time, though.
> Also check out apt4rpm which basically acomplishes the same things for you.
> It also works just like the apt-get system for all my Debian friends out
> there. http://freshrpms.net/apt/ So... you can apt-get and never have to
> deal with Redhat's up2date package manager if you do not want to.
apt-rpm is ok, but not great. The main problem is that there aren't enough
packages and the packages are not as high quality. Plus updates are really
slow, and old. openssl is at 0.96b, we are at 0.96h by now, and this means
two huge security fixes.
It can't dist upgrade at all. I don't think that up2date can either.
> > I know that you don't have to pay, but then they treat you like a second
> > class citizen, and I don't know an easy/stable way to set up one's own
> > mirror.
>
> Hmmm... I have not been treated badly by their tech support but then again,
> what do you expect for free? If you are paying for the support (ala' their
www.debian.org
> business model) then they are quick to help you. Yes. I remember seeing
> something about setting up a local up2date mirror for shops that have a
> large number of systems. I would most likely go with apt4rpm before going
> that route however.
I saw two projects to replicate up2date. I don't think it's a good idea.
1. pointless, there are better alternatives all ready
2. too hard, seems like there is some deliberate lockdown, which is in
line w/ rh's business model
3. makes a commercial product more attractive. If I'm working on free sw,
I want to work on free sw, not make someone in Durham rich.
> > rh does pay some great developers (Alan Cox), but they still are trying to
> > get paid for something that I can get for free (including a distro).
>
> True. I love being able to download the ISOs for the latest stable Redhat
> and have the power of a well working Linux at my command. Check out some of
> their high end stuff though. Clustering and 64bit database systems built on
> Redhat... some of it is really great for the Linux community. Being honest,
> some shops do not have the talent and/or time to figure out how to piece
> together a Linux distro that can do all that plus support it to other shops
> when something decides it is not going to work for some resaon.
There's abundant support for every distro that there is.
If people pay the often quoted consulting fee of $50/hour for linux
support,
I'm sure that they could assemble an army of people ready to support a
given distro.
I'll support any distro under the sun for $50/hour.
> > 3. no known way that up2date can upgrade you to the next distro: 6.0->7.0
> > w/o downloading media (there is floppy net upgrade, IMHO, which is nice).
> > This means that you are going to have to sit in front of the actual
> > machine and reboot it at least once.
>
> Yep. Up2date is meant to keep a Redhat install -- up to date. In an example
> of RH7.3 to RH8 there is not much of an upgrade in terms of server use. RH8
> is mostly an upgrade of userland stuff.
That doesn't make sense. rh is never going to support apache2? They never
moved from libc5 to libc6?
> > The redhat installer is really pretty and there are lots of rh packages
> > out there. Most commercial software targets rh. But if you want
> > commercial, you need to think about if you really want linux in the first
> > place. Maybe solaris would be a better fit.
>
> Yes, and if you are paying for support then Sun is the way to go. I like the
> Linux way since I do not have to stick with Sun hardware which can be very
> expensive. Sure their servers really rock, but for a workstation? Yes, I
> know, reliability, blah, blah, blah. I think many people do not have a
> hardware clue because I do not usually have any stability issues that are
> hardware related. I just don't. Even on the Win32 system I maintain. An
> actual hardware or server code related crash is rare -- like many one in 50
> per a year. (Before anyone else chimes in about that, I have users running
> crappily written software memory leak a workstation into the ground daily.
> That is not the Operating Systems fault. Win32 or Linux.)
I think that a memory leak would not crash linux, but it would crash the
user application. I could be wrong. No matter how poor of an application I
have written, I have not been able to crash my linux box w/ poor sw. I was
able to crash it in other ways, though. :)
> > A advocate debian (www.debian.org) b/c they are commited to completely
> > free software--not: we like free software, now pay us for shininess. Yes
> > there are free rh downloads of all iso and they do pay really great
> > developers to make linux better for everyone.
>
> Hey, I love Debian too. I miss working on a recompiled Debian system, so
> quick on its feet, so efficient, so -- well great! However, I maintain
> systems for others and they want a way of supporting the boxes should I ever
> move on to something else. Redhat was a natural choice. Sure, I could have
Debian is better. The big trouble is the install on debian. Once it's
installed, you could dist-upgrade it remotely. Or you could install a
graphical installer util. I know of at least three of these which are
available for debian.
No need to register. No need to worry about dist-upgrades.
Completely free software. No annoying branding. Runs mostly vanilla
software so it's easier to troubleshoot problems.
> Gosh I love that. Linux in my pocket. NetBSD does that too. And you can even
> setup your own net install mirror so you can net install at a full 100Mbit
> switched on your local network. Very cool indeed.
rh can also net install, I should mention this.
> You can also go to http://linuxiso.org for downloadable ISO images. Redhat
> also provides the ISO images via FTP as well on most big mirrors so be sure
> to pick one close to you?
I have been downloading and burning these for ages. I have the latest rh8.
I use both rh and debian on a constant basis.
My point was that there is nothing magical about rh that makes it
different/better than any other distro besides the fact that they
completely own the mindshare as far as free software goes.
The less free that they can make sw, the better it is for rh. That's not a
judgement, just an economic fact.
If you want to run commercial sw w/ commercial support do so. If you want
to run free sw, really run free sw.
Fred
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|