Ola,
estou mandando alguns emails pra lista com perolas de advocacia pra
usar a Debian coletados ao longo dos anos ja que pediram ;)
Um abraço, PH
=======================================================================================
Why I chose Debian GNU/Linux
by Ivan E. Moore II, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com/articles/imoore2.html
=======================================================================================
Well, Debian doesn't typically install as easily as RedHat. Also,
thanks to the branding of RedHat, many don't release binaries except as
rpms, so you have to use alien to convert it.
After switching from RedHat -> Mandrake -> Debian, I should be
able to help you. So far my likes are the following:
1. Debian has no direct commercial interests.
2. Debian packages tend to be of much higher quality than the crap posted
on rpmfind.
3. The Debian package management facilities, though a little confusing due
to the layers, are far superior to rpm. It is only now that graphical rpm
clients are providing some of the functionality of apt-get.
4. The organization of the file system in Debian is superior,
IMHO. RedHat, for example, added a ton of complexity to the X
initialization process in the name of useability. All it did was make
things harder. With Debian, it's very straightforward.
5. Several bugs I found in RedHat/Mandrake are not present in
Debian. Here's what I can currently remember:
5.1 The mount command works properly wrt /etc/filesystems
5.2 Power-downs have yet to damage my filesystem under
Debian. They did every single time under RedHat/Mandrake.
6. Before a package appears even in the unstable section of a Debian ftp
site, it must be fairly stable. This quality assurance of the site
maintainers is something you simply don't find with rpmfind. After being
bitten time and time again by bad rpms, this is very, very nice.
7. Thanks to apt-get and a good internet connection, I'll probably never
have to buy another Linux CD-ROM. I'll never have to install one either,
except for someone else. I can just do the following:
7.1 edit /etc/apt/sources.list
7.2 apt-get update
7.3 apt-get dist-upgrade
and my system will be upgraded to the next release.
That's what I like so far. ;-)
Downside? Beyond the above, the documentation could use some work,
and the whole bloody world seems to be in love with RedHat, so there could
be a M$-like lack of support for other distros in the future. Debian still
uses some of the basic install tools, so often autodetection is a nice
fairy tale and you must learn more about your hardware than you _ever_
wanted to know.
=======================================================================================
Speaking of packages, I think this should be raised.
In general, I find that the quality of Debian packages is better than
most others. Why?
With most distributions, managers are forced to make a compromise -
spend more time packaging very popular software, and less time packaging
less popular software, or spread out the available resources for all
packages. For the former, you'll end up with some very good packages,
but you'll also end up with lots more that are mediocre, at best. In the
latter case, you'll end up with a bunch of mediocre packages. When you
pay your packagers and rely on those packagers for your distribution,
you have finite resources to work with.
Debian is really a community - in essence, a community of packagers.
While there are only a few dozen dedicated packagers(who will package
anything and everything, and things that everyone uses, like libc and
such), there are hundreds of packagers who only package the program(s)
they want to. The ones they use, day to day.
What you end up with is a nice, even quality to the packages. The
less-popular packages are still packaged by someone who uses it -
they'll give just as much attention to detail with their "pet package"
as someone who's packaging 'util-linux' or 'file-utils' would. The best
of both worlds - you have a good, solid, base system of well-packaged
popular software, and you have hundreds(thousands!) of other
less-popular software packaged to the same standards and quality.
There is also the issue of updating. A distribution maker must expend
enourmous resources into making the next version of their distribution.
They also must expend resources to keep their most current distribution
up-to-date with the rest of the world. Let's look at Red Hat for an
example. Aside from security fixes, when was the last time you were able
to update to the latest GNOME desktop, using packages specifically
designed for your distribution's version, from you distribuion vendor?
Not very often, I can tell you. And they can't be blamed for that,
either. For some things, it can be a near-full-time job for twenty or
thrity packages. Considering a modern Linux distribution comes with
thousands of packages, this is obviously a time-consuming prospect.
Now, the single-package Debian Maintainer probably wants to have the
latest usable version of his pet program. Since they will most likely
want it in packaged format, they'll make a package of it. Since they've
made a package of it, they'll likely upload it to a Debian
repository(destined for the unstable branch of Debian, of course). Tada!
Everyone now has access to that new, updated program, straight from the
maintainer who originally packaged it(or, a new maintainer if the old
maintainer decided to give up the reins[sp?]).
I'm rambling a bit. Sorry, I'm tired. Maybe I'll write an essay :)
=======================================================================================
(This is also some kind of a rant, read at own risk, see below for
major points)
2.5 years ago I got a job as a network engineer and all of my
colleagues used two boxes, my boss explained it "windows for
compatibility, unix for productivity". One of the sysadmins set up a
linux box for me (not based on any distribution, but completely
handcrafted) and gradually as I learned more I started doing more and
more of my work with it.
Package management being an unknown issue on the box I had a *very*
steep learning curve, but after some near-disasters (mostly involving
libc-upgrades) I thought about the package-management issue and
installed SuSe on my home machine. After one or two weeks I stumbled
across the Debian website, read about the DFSG and immediately liked it.
Administering the SuSe box was a nightmare anyway, so I nuked it and
installed Debian (slink). Some weeks later I installed Debian on my
private webserver and another few weeks after on my workstation, too.
In the meantime I´m the primary helpline for some new colleagues and
urge them to install Debian, but some simply like the colorful SuSe
approach and install SuSe and/or Redhat anyway, so I have to cope with
them, too. But Debian is clearly my favourite choice:
- Clear software guideline, DFSG, but with a practical approach, see
the non-free/non-US sections
- Superior package-management, heck, even libc-upgrades working
flawlessly
- very strict filesystem-layout and
- also strict setup of the init-scripts and config-files in /etc
- (nearly) instant security updates via security.debian.org, this is
*very* convenient for production machines. Not a single exploit
exploited in 1.5 years now <crossing fingers> ;)
- active and helpful mailing lists, even for rather mysterious and/or
exotic problems
- I can see the Hurd on the horizon, not approaching very fast, but
steadily
- not depending on rather magical tools like SuSeconfig and
- never ever messing around with my config files without asking first
and even then backing up the old version
- clear and funtional bug-reporting system
- intelligent policy regarding stable (,testing) and unstable releases
with the option to run unstable packages on otherwise stable systems
- small-footprint systems hasslefree possible, install base and apt-get
only what you really need
=======================================================================================
With my workstation here at work passing 1 year of uptime
a few days ago I must say that debian is the most solid OS
for either workstation or server that I have used sofar. I'm
sure some of it comes from the hardware I choose and the software
config. but I am still astounded that this machine has been up
for over a year, I hammer on it every weekday, and until about
a week ago it did 20gigs of tape backups over NFS every weekday
too. Checking 'procinfo' for % idle time it has less idle time
then even my most busy servers. I run X in 1600x1200 with afterstep
1.6 on debian woody (upgraded from potato about 6 months ago).
I run Opera & Netscape & VMWare & Staroffice & XMMS virtually 24/7.
as well as usually 2 dozen SSH sessions & 2-3 dozen gnome terminals.
ingredients for my stable workstation:
Intel P3-733Mhz
Asus CUV4X
512MB PC133 ram clocked at 100Mhz
IBM DDYS-T09170N 9.1GB Ultra160 SCSI hard disk
Adaptec 29160N SCSI Controller (connected to hard disk and external
CD-RW)
Adaptec 2940 SCSI controller (connected to 2 tape drives)
Plextor PX-W124TS 12/4/32 CD-R/W (burned about 200 CDs since last reboot)
Quantum DLT4000(external)
Exabyte Mammoth(connected, but never used..)
Matrox G400 16MB OEM Video(AGP) - No DRI/AGP or any of the fancy stuff
enabled. running 1600x1200 @ 16bit
Soundblaster PCI 128 (Asus CUV4X onboard sound disabled in hardware)
3COM 3C905B-TX Network card
Promise ATA/100 IDE controller(PCI)
IBM-DTLA-307045 45GB IDE drive(this drive is **NOT** reccomended)
TOSHIBA CD-ROM XM-6702B IDE
Generic 300watt power supply(my company wouldn't spring for a good
power supply when i got this system)
Cyberpower AVR900 (500watt UPS)
USR Courier vEVERYTHING external
PS/2 Trackball, PS/2 Keyboard
And perhaps one of the most important parts-- the kernel. 2.2.19
built with at least 1 3rd party patch(ide patch), perhaps others
I forget. everything is statically linked into the kernel, no
modules(other then vmware's 2 modules)
Great work debian team! I am continually amazed at how good debian
is.
Now if my company is around this time next year(damn economy) I will
see if i can make it to 2 years of uptime. I just wish i could
switch out the power supply without rebooting :)
I also work with RS6000s, HP9000s, UltraSparcs, and a couple of
digital alphas(all of them workstation-class). In the past I worked
with SGIs(again, all workstation-class). Out of all the ~15 OSs/Platforms
I have used, debian seems the most solid for workstation-class/low end
server(low end being dual cpu or less with 2GB of ram or less - I have
no experience yet with anything higher end then that).
nate
(debian user since debian 2.0 made it's release, before that, slackware)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Paulo Henrique B de Oliveira
Gerente de Operações - Linux Solutions - http://www.linuxsolutions.com.br
O maior conteúdo de Linux em língua portuguesa - OLinux -
http://www.olinux.com.br
(21) 2526-7262 ramal 31
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
