[thelist] Re: Linux Distribs

[deboute benjamin]

At 01:44 14/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Jeremy Weiss wrote:
> > was using a version called Slackware, but I never hear about it
> > anymore.  Does anyone know if it's still around, and if so, how
> > is it comparing to all the rest?
>...
>Yes, Slackware is still around (http://www.slackware.com/) and kicking. I
>hear great things about it from the more serious nerds -- I understand
>that as a speedy install on small servers and such, it works great. It's
>also highly approved for the underground cultural references.

slackware slogan is 'Accept No Substitute'
basically, Slackware is UNIX [for installation] BSD for structure.
same commands, no fancy configuration tools.


i knew slackwarians, but it is an art that demands a lot of aptitude for 
masochism, and they all went to Debian.

a distrib for mature over-sophisticated gurus OR people from a pure UNIX 
background OR young future over-stressed workers

>I'm starting to get the feeling that different Linux distributions often
>have very different but equally useful applications -- RedHat as an
>all-around well-supported system,

yessir. redhat is cool and relativly friendly [you can find packages that 
work AND install them with a graphic interface]

>Corel for desktops,

yessir corel sux

>  Debian for security

oh yeah, Debian Rules [IF some high perched Nerd does not insist that 
everybody should run on Debian Unstable.]
debian lacks package support [debianists don't like Shareware, nor 
pseudo-licensed software. 'Paying is for Sissies.']

>(though FreeBSD or OpenBSD fill this niche much better),
for servers, YES.
FreeBSD IS your man.

>Caldera for erformance,

don't know.
if the Penguins that work with me don't use it, it certainly sux.


>I'd be curious to hear the opinions of others on various Linux
>distributions, especially in web environments (including desktop systems,
>name servers, mail servers, etc.). What do people use, and how do you use
>what you've got?


you forgot LinuxPPC for macophiles.

for servers :: FreeBSD/Linux, i don't see much difference.
the problems are practical and only depnds of your admin's affinity


package releases
   Lin*x classic [RedHat] <- Day0
   Lin*x 31373 [Debian]   <- Day+7
   FreeBsd                <- Day+?

security
   FreeBsd
   Lin*x

reliability
   observation :: reliability goes with 3137ism and seems to go downry with 
widespreading.
     possibilities :: _more young H4x0Rs== more K3rn3l P4n1x
                      _more yound H4x0Rs== old hackers retire to less noisy 
boards

   FreeBsd
   Debian
   RedHat


differences
   the filesystem.
      BSDlike/FreeBsd,Slackware
      LinuxLike/Debian
      SissyLike/RedHat [Suse, Mandrake...]
         redhat decided that /usr/local would be /opt ????!!! WHY!



i'm a windows desktopper when i can't have 2 computers.
i like Win2K for its tools and resistance against crashes, and because it 
has a BROWSER and it is my audience.
i like lin*x because you can run servers on it.
and the tools are wonderful
really, and the system is hackable, setable, you can write your commands...


for professionnal results, i adopt a Linux.


deboute benjamin