Re: BDI candidate...

["Dave Engvall" <dengvall-at-charter.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <paul-at-bdiemc.fslife.co.uk>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <emc-at-nist.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: BDI candidate...


>
>
> I am fast gaining a *real* dislike for RPM packaging in general, and Red
Hat
> in particular. The principles behind RPMs are great - Having a list of
> dependencies built in, and the ability to declare the functions that are
> provided (in a meta-data header) is usefull. two things let the rpm thing
> down.
> 1) No standard for the required/provided dependencies, and circular
> dependecies allowed.
> 2) Red Hat can, and indeed has already done so, change the rpm program and
> remove compatapility with earlier versions. i.e. rpm-Ver_3 can not use
> rpm-Ver_4 generated packages.
>
> What are the alternatives ? Debian is stable and well respected, and has
> better control over the meta-data headers. Installing is not for the faint
> hearted or the true green newbie (it even scares me).
>
> RPM based distros such as Mandrake, Altlinux, SuSE, and others, share the
> same basic problem as Red Hat. Most of the mainstream distros have an easy
to
> use GUI installer with reliable hardware detection.
>
> Source based distros, Gentoo, Sorcerer, Arch, (LFS if you really want to
be a
> masochist) all require a degree of Linux knowledge, and certainly do not
> qualify for the BDI tag.
>
> Did try out slackware several years ago on a DOS partition. How easy it is
to
> install or use noe, I can not comment.
>
> Finally, there are the growing number of Live CD distros - Some are hand
> built from picking over the file system of a real box. Others have their
> roots in the Debian system. A great way of distributing a demo, full of
> pitfalls to maintain, and for the end user to upgrade, difficult without
> knowledge of Linux.
>
> A final nail in future RH based BDI discs is their intent to reduce the
> "product life" of each major release (I believe, around one year), and
stop
> supporting older releases shortly after. At the end of the day, RH are a
> business and need to maximize their revenue streams. Possibly the reason
> behind the plethora of EULA texts on the current CDs.
>
> I have no desire to start an evils-of-RPM vs evils-of-Deb or source vs
live
> CD debate - There will be a new BDI at NAMES, along with BDI-2.xx & TNG,
and
> that is all I will say on the subject for now.
>
> Regards, Paul.
>
>
>
> On Thursday 27 March 2003 8:36 pm, Scott Holmes wrote:
> > I know I've seen other recommendations for BDI installations, I like the
> > idea of a Redhat based BDI because it's where most people seem to start
> > with Linux, and it tends to scare fewer people off.
>
> --
My gosh, people: if I can install debian and build a kernel then anyone can.
Have not done so lately....still running an older system but I understand
the package selection tool built on top of the old stuff makes that much
easier. If one is faint hearted then one uses a really easy install or the
BDI...and goes from there. Upgrading incrementally via the package selector
is one of  the best features, but maybe better for geeks than people like
me.
With either software or hardware I don't upgrade often....just went from a
K6-300 to a AMD 1700+. :-)
Anyway, just my tupence.

Dave Engvall

>
> "To err is human...to really f*** things up requires the root password."
> >From a collection of quotes at http://www.indigo.org/quotes.html
>