i have seen the forums and everyones been complaining about how their redhat has problems with sound, modem, apache, blah blah. How about trying a better distribution guys. Dont mean no offense and please no angry replies.
just a thought
just a thought
Why are all the people here using RedHat?...
i have seen the forums and everyones been complaining about how their redhat has problems with sound, modem, apache, blah blah. How about trying a better distribution guys. Dont mean no offense and please no angry replies.
i have seen the forums and everyones been complaining about how their redhat has problems with sound, modem, apache, blah blah. How about trying a better distribution guys. Dont mean no offense and please no angry replies.
-umer
well this mite be a controversial topic and i dont want to start any sort of debate. but my personal opinion would be, for a newbie to start with Mandrake or Suse instead. I started with Redhat 5.0. but after all the tragedies n pulling my hair out i came to realize that Debian was much better to use as a developer and administrator. you should try out different dirstros before getting your hands set on one rather than just sticking to whats out there.
peace
peace
-umer
-
farhantoqeer
- Major General
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 5:45 pm
- Location: Karachi
- Contact:
just a thought
Agree! still using Vector SOHO for desktop is much better. It is easy, light and fast to use even with KDE
cwackked,
I'm using Redhat 9, but not because I'm a newbie. I've used pretty much every distro (except LFS and Gentoo) over the past 3 years. Longest I've stuck with a distro was 1.5 year with Debian. However, I'm at a point where I don't feel like messing with module.conf, XF86Config etc. anymore. Redhat, IMHO, is a good balance between
I'm using Redhat 9, but not because I'm a newbie. I've used pretty much every distro (except LFS and Gentoo) over the past 3 years. Longest I've stuck with a distro was 1.5 year with Debian. However, I'm at a point where I don't feel like messing with module.conf, XF86Config etc. anymore. Redhat, IMHO, is a good balance between
- Free (All software in RHL are free software).
- Openness (The Redhat developers are very open to suggestions regarding their distro. They have a couple of redhat guys on the OSN list, and their new RHL program will ensure even more community involvement).
- Stable (Haven't had it croak on me since 7.2).
- Software availability (freshrpms and fedora have most of the packages I use regularly).
- Ease of use. I don't mind tweaking an httpd.conf by hand every now and then, but the Redhat tools for user manipulation, printer configuration, X configuration etc. do really help out.
yeh fawad bhai is very very right.because now redhat has some very lovely server configuring GUI tools.
but point is he uses GUI of redhat.
now here in pakistan normally every ISP ,every server at labs is running on redhat and WITHOUT GUI.
and they even dont know why they are using redhat
even people call that redhat 9 is linux 9.
oneday when i told a guy (who was working is linux from 1 year) that linux has more than thousand flavours he thought is am joking.
but i think that mandrake is a more good distribution for a home user.because home user needs good graphics and sound support and in that case mandrake rules and redhat causes troubles.
but point is he uses GUI of redhat.
now here in pakistan normally every ISP ,every server at labs is running on redhat and WITHOUT GUI.
and they even dont know why they are using redhat
even people call that redhat 9 is linux 9.
oneday when i told a guy (who was working is linux from 1 year) that linux has more than thousand flavours he thought is am joking.
but i think that mandrake is a more good distribution for a home user.because home user needs good graphics and sound support and in that case mandrake rules and redhat causes troubles.
that was my point exactly,
i am not arguing that redhat is bad, i think it binds a new user to the "glory" and "ease of installation" through rpms which takes them a notch away from the nitty gritty details and it dawns a bit later when they realize the issues concerned with rpms. dependencies for one, systems like mandrake, suse slackware are more general in this sense and adapt to environments easily. i was surprised to see the redhat 9 how gui'd up theyve made it. wonderful..but thats not what linux is about or how an OS should be...in my opinion atleast.
peace
i am not arguing that redhat is bad, i think it binds a new user to the "glory" and "ease of installation" through rpms which takes them a notch away from the nitty gritty details and it dawns a bit later when they realize the issues concerned with rpms. dependencies for one, systems like mandrake, suse slackware are more general in this sense and adapt to environments easily. i was surprised to see the redhat 9 how gui'd up theyve made it. wonderful..but thats not what linux is about or how an OS should be...in my opinion atleast.
peace
-umer
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
I Fully agree with the points laid by fawad here.
Well this has remained a hot issue, as to which distribution is the best.
Well , as i always say, we must not forget, that most distros are same in the sense that they use the same core.They use the same kernel written by Linus Trovalds and available at kernel.org.
They use the same packages like xmms for mp3s, gnome or kde for the desktop and most of all the same XFREE86 and X. Only 10 %, of the softwares included in the distro are programmed by the distro maker itself.Rest are those written by 3rd party people/companies...for example gnome, kde or xmms
So the point is, which distro u use doesnt make much difference, if u are Good at linux!
The main difference between the distros is how they CUSTOMIZE and ORGANIZE the packages like how they customize gnome or Xfree86,and what packages they choose, and what extra programs and configuration tools they add by themselves.
So the point here is, there are tons of distros available there days.Most of them are same, in the aspects i already mentioned.
Also RedHat has long been the leader in the distro field.
Mandrake , if u dont know, is a derivative of Redhat.
Most other distros like college linux, are derivatives of distros like redhat,mandrake or slackware
Let me put it this way:
===========================
Use the distro that best suits your needs
Donot Assume that there is a major speed/performance difference between the distros.There may be a small difference but not such a major one.Also it all depends on what packages u choose to install, how well you configure and tweak your system...
Donot bother others by saying use this distro and not that one!!!!!!!
==========================================================
What do others like fawad think?
Well this has remained a hot issue, as to which distribution is the best.
Well , as i always say, we must not forget, that most distros are same in the sense that they use the same core.They use the same kernel written by Linus Trovalds and available at kernel.org.
They use the same packages like xmms for mp3s, gnome or kde for the desktop and most of all the same XFREE86 and X. Only 10 %, of the softwares included in the distro are programmed by the distro maker itself.Rest are those written by 3rd party people/companies...for example gnome, kde or xmms
So the point is, which distro u use doesnt make much difference, if u are Good at linux!
The main difference between the distros is how they CUSTOMIZE and ORGANIZE the packages like how they customize gnome or Xfree86,and what packages they choose, and what extra programs and configuration tools they add by themselves.
So the point here is, there are tons of distros available there days.Most of them are same, in the aspects i already mentioned.
Also RedHat has long been the leader in the distro field.
Mandrake , if u dont know, is a derivative of Redhat.
Most other distros like college linux, are derivatives of distros like redhat,mandrake or slackware
Let me put it this way:
===========================
Use the distro that best suits your needs
Donot Assume that there is a major speed/performance difference between the distros.There may be a small difference but not such a major one.Also it all depends on what packages u choose to install, how well you configure and tweak your system...
Donot bother others by saying use this distro and not that one!!!!!!!
==========================================================
What do others like fawad think?
Last edited by Faraz.Fazil on Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Apps for linux are available in two forms:
1.Sources....normally in compressed .tar.gz or bz2 format
Basically you compile the sources on your system using the make commands.So sources can be installed on any distro.But it has many drawbacks which i have explained later
2.Distros's proprietary format.
You all know these.Like rpm files in redhat and mandrake and .deb files in debian etc
These can only be installed on their respective distro.But they can be installed very quickly effeciently and without much effort.But there main problem is availablity
Well.
I always recommend installing rpms over sources, if the rpms are available.
Compiling sources takes a hell of time in some cases, and is a cumbersome process, although a few simple commands are involved.But the thing is since you compile all the scripts so it takes a lot of time compared to rpms and many errors often arise as well.
Well , your point doesnt make much sense.Users like me , know how to install both from sources and also from formats like rpm.And also know how to create rpms from sources.
So what u said doesnt make much sense.
It is really good to have a proprietary format like .rpm in redhat/mandrake or .deb in debian
They make the installation of programs really less time consuming , and more efficient
That is more of a plus point of redhat, and not something that makes users sloppy
I hope i made my point clear enuff.
1.Sources....normally in compressed .tar.gz or bz2 format
Basically you compile the sources on your system using the make commands.So sources can be installed on any distro.But it has many drawbacks which i have explained later
2.Distros's proprietary format.
You all know these.Like rpm files in redhat and mandrake and .deb files in debian etc
These can only be installed on their respective distro.But they can be installed very quickly effeciently and without much effort.But there main problem is availablity
Well.
I always recommend installing rpms over sources, if the rpms are available.
Compiling sources takes a hell of time in some cases, and is a cumbersome process, although a few simple commands are involved.But the thing is since you compile all the scripts so it takes a lot of time compared to rpms and many errors often arise as well.
Well , your point doesnt make much sense.Users like me , know how to install both from sources and also from formats like rpm.And also know how to create rpms from sources.
So what u said doesnt make much sense.
It is really good to have a proprietary format like .rpm in redhat/mandrake or .deb in debian
They make the installation of programs really less time consuming , and more efficient
That is more of a plus point of redhat, and not something that makes users sloppy
I hope i made my point clear enuff.
cwackked wrote:that was my point exactly,
i am not arguing that redhat is bad, i think it binds a new user to the "glory" and "ease of installation" through rpms which takes them a notch away from the nitty gritty details and it dawns a bit later when they realize the issues concerned with rpms. dependencies for one, systems like mandrake, suse slackware are more general in this sense and adapt to environments easily. i was surprised to see the redhat 9 how gui'd up theyve made it. wonderful..but thats not what linux is about or how an OS should be...in my opinion atleast.
peace
-
Faraz.Fazil
- Major General
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:31 pm
- Location: Karachi/Pakistan/Earth/Universe
Well that really depends.
Rpms do tend to require dependencies but not that much!!
As long as there are sites like rpmfind.net and rpm.pbone.net from where u can download any rpm or dependency in no time, it is not that big a problem.
For instance u were installing abc.rpm and it asked for a dependency libxm.so, all u would have to do would be to goto rpmfind.net or rpm.pbone.net and download the dependency from there in rpm format, just by entering libxm in the search field.
Besides, rpms are easily available and most softwares for linux are released in source .tar.gz format or .rpm formats.
Since mandrake is a derivative of redhat, so it uses rpms too.
Rpms do tend to require dependencies but not that much!!
As long as there are sites like rpmfind.net and rpm.pbone.net from where u can download any rpm or dependency in no time, it is not that big a problem.
For instance u were installing abc.rpm and it asked for a dependency libxm.so, all u would have to do would be to goto rpmfind.net or rpm.pbone.net and download the dependency from there in rpm format, just by entering libxm in the search field.
Besides, rpms are easily available and most softwares for linux are released in source .tar.gz format or .rpm formats.
Since mandrake is a derivative of redhat, so it uses rpms too.
newbie wrote:the most biggest problem with rpm based distributions is
if you have to install 1 rpm you need almost 20 dependencies.
thats why i like slackware just a little list of packages.and dont need dependencies.adding new programs aftrer installation is very easy.
-
farhantoqeer
- Major General
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 5:45 pm
- Location: Karachi
- Contact:
-
mrkkhattak
- Site Admin
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Karachi
- Contact: