| sean finney on 13 Sep 2004 13:07:02 -0000 |
|
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:07:58AM -0400, Tobias DiPasquale wrote: > Seriously, though, RH/SuSE have Bugzilla, too (and they work) and I > would imagine that the only thing you mentioned above that RH and SuSE > lack is the social contract. The development process is the same (just > faster), RH has more software available than Debian and stable is the development process is not at all the same! first off, anyone can contribute to or become a developer for debian. debian has a strict set of guidelines for what and how software gets into the distribution, and what quality assurance checks it must pass. but perhaps most importantly, this is all completely transparent to the general public. all the rules, guidelines, bugs, development statuses, and security issues are made available. as far as available software, my rhn account says that redhat provides 1215 seperate packages for the latest version of their enteprise server. you do realize that debian has well over 10 TIMES that amount? > __too__ slow IMO. Plus, you can't just pull what you want from testing, > b/c that will almost invariably pull stuff that you do not want, as > well (think libc dependency). And, finally, if you do decide to grab > from testing, forget about security updates for those pieces of > software (at least, from Debian itself). the whole point of pulling only what you need (+ deps, yes) is that you minimize what isn't part of the stable security infrastructure. we've been over the security issue as well. it's not that there is no security infrastracture for testing, it's just you don't have the same guarantee that you do with stable. and if you're concerned about security, then you'd already be subscribed to debian-security-announce, and you'd know about it ahead of time. typically security updates to testing are only a day or so behind, assuming that the issue isn't moot because the version in testing is usually far ahead of what's in stable to begin with. > In any case, my preferred distro is Gentoo. Its just that RH gets a bit > of a bad rap from the tech cognoscenti and IMO its a little undeserved. not having used gentoo, i can't say anything one way or another. i have friends who are big fans though. maybe when i finally get that amd64 system, i'll give it a whirl. however, i do have extensive experience with redhat, and i think that having to manage 50+ production machines gives me sufficient credentials to bitch about it :) > equivs? basically, you provide a control file for a dummy/non-existant package, and equivs will convince your system that you have that package installed. say for example, you want to run a newer version of x.org's xserver, and don't have xfree86 installed. there's tons of stuff that depends on having an x server, so you could use equivs to tell your system that you indeed have one installed. sean Attachment:
signature.asc
|
|