| sean finney on 13 Sep 2004 05:08:02 -0000 |
|
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 07:43:05PM -0400, Tobias DiPasquale wrote: > You'd do well to check that out. Debian is nice, but with the inclusion > of Yum and APT in RedHat, its lost its advantages in my mind and I'd go > with RedHat or SuSE, especially if you want to run software from the > 90's. Debian's release cycle to stable is balls slow and no one's debian has more than apt going for it. how about one of the most active user communities in the world, a completely transparent and open development process, a *constitution and social contract*, a well functioning bug management system, and a huge collection of freely available software? stable is "balls slow" because it was designed to be exactly that. if you want something faster moving, you can pull what you want from testing when you need it. we've had this argument in the past... > Plus, its _MUCH_ easier to make custom RPMs than it is to make custom > dpkgs (Debian's package format). I learned how to package software with > RPM in a few hours (two days ago, in fact); Debian has 5 different > places for information on how to make dpkgs and they're all wrong in > some way(s) or another. i won't argue that it isn't more complicated, but it makes for a more robust packaging system. however, there are alternatives to having to use dpkg for your own in-house software needs. if you're trying to make custom packages to satisfy some kind of missing dependency, use equivs. if you're just trying to make it easier to keep pre-compiled software distributed among your servers, use stow and rsync. > stability. I know I'm going to get flamed for this opinion, but we ran > Debian for years and are now switching to RedHat because of the above > concerns (not to mention the fact that you can find more people who > know RedHat). in the us, you can find more people who use redhat because redhat does a great job of marketing as well as providing a viable commercial product which fits in well with a corporate ethos (the "user friendly" installer is helpful too). they actively engage proprietary vendors to "certify" software for their platform, and provide "support". as a result, more companies want people with redhat experience, and thus more people get redhat training/certification. this has nothing to do with technical superiority or higher quality of their product, just a better mind/market share. > sendmail. sendmail is better at integrating with everything than qmail, > b/c qmail's author refuses to make any changes to it whatsoever. > However, I would recommend Postfix; its faster and more secure than > sendmail and also integrates nicely with a number of anti-spam (SA) and > anti-virus (ClamAV) packages, as well as not a few mailing list > managers (mailman). i highly recommend postfix. better security record than sendmail, and much easier to configure too. so, we seem to agree on at least something :) sean Attachment:
signature.asc
|
|