Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
However, Woody (which was released analogous to RH9) was just as rock
solid stable as Sarge. I agree completely that we must compare
relatively equal systems, but doing so does not change the outcome:
Debian Stable lives up to its name.
I was using
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 22:37 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > > solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
> ^
> > > computer
>
> any machine can boot and run in the unplugge
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:32 -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
> >
> >> Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
> >>
> >
> > Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
> >
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released
> 06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite
> significant in terms of hardware support and general application
> stability.
bingo ...
some folks like
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
^
> > computer
any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state,
otherwise your config is not properly configured
but, ob
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
using Sid, it just dies. :)
Your /etc/rununplugged.rc file must be hosed. M
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> > Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
> > mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> > have sort of bothered me. So, today
charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
>
>>Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
>>mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
>>have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
>>
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 23:03, charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> > mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> > have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
> > and wow, am I impressed.
> Under r
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
> mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
> and wow, am I impressed. I
Really great news. I am also shifted here like you :)On 4/6/06, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and havemainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versionshave sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the firs
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
and wow, am I impressed. I plan on migrating all my servers, home and
office, to
google ssh reverse dns debian
turned up this as the first hit:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2002/03/msg00081.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi! I recently switched to debian Sarge (and sid) for all of my work (YAY I
LOVE IT!).
Now, until now, I had been using redhat 7.3 for my servers. I have many redhat
7.3 servers, and now, I have installed 2 debian sarge servers (i know it is
not yet released, but I have tested it for months a
Roderick Cummings declaimed:
> ...but I have a dozen or so 486's, IPX's, udb's chugging along
Me too. Just because I can! And if I didn't keep the 486 up, what would
I do with that perfectly good ISA+microchannel SCSI card?
:-) PM
--
Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11
[EMAIL PROTEC
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:58:41PM -0500, Paul Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> %% martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> mfk> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300
> +0100]:
>
> >> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
>
> mfk> no karsten, you m
%% martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mfk> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300
+0100]:
>> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
mfk> no karsten, you messed the order up again!
That's a quote from Star Trek IV, actually.
--
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]:
> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
no karsten, you messed the order up again!
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
si
on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:40:46PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
> > LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
>
> LDS?
> LSB?
>
> i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, whic
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
> LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, which would be
the one dictating this...
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.
--On Saturday, January 12, 2002 13:03:27 -0800 "Karsten M. Self"
wrote:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
Mind you, when I try explaining this to my RH friends, there's generally
strong resistence to the concept that Dweebian might have got this one
ri
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:19:27PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
> > Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
> >
> > RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
>
> they sure did. but in 7.0, re
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
> Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
>
> RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did. but in 7.0, redhat provided the /etc/init.d symlink, and
i believe that 7.2 had it completely switched. im not s
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
>
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision. At this point I just have
> the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
> out for p
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:26:41PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
> > Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
> > vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
>
> strictly sp
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:07:18AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Alec wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> >> > Does the RPM build process have an equival
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:27:13PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
> > If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
>
> dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
> yet, or wasn't the most popular packa
also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0152 +0100]:
> i also don't like that packages install all to /usr/local. i can see
> how ports would do this but i would expect software installed via
> sysinstall to go to /usr
i wouldn't, but its about as useful a discussion as which whisky is be
also sprach Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.1802 +0100]:
> Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing
> much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata
> for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make
> rough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 12:52 pm, Alec wrote:
> On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
> > I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
> > you fall so far behind,
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
> I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
> you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you
> have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 11:02 am, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
> I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
>
> I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the
> good things it all has.
>
> Won
Alec wrote:
>On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
>> > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
>>
>> only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
>> functiona
I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the good
things it all has.
Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the
pioneering work for the community (and mayb
* Adam Majer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > > > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
> > >
> > > You are more right than you think: every tim
From: Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Subject: Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:21:13 -0500
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +01
also sprach Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0609 +0100]:
> For the benefit of a lurking newbie, what is "FHS-accordance"?
the filesystem hierarchy standard[1]. it specifies very exactly where
each file of a package *has* to go. that keeps the system very clean.
redhat doesn't do that
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
> > I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
> > to be as maintainable over the long haul.
>
> which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
On Thursday 10 January 2002 19:21, Stuart Krivis wrote:
> --On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> >> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of
> >> dpkg-shlibdeps?
also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0459 +0100]:
> If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix
> anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple
> enough? :)
h! now i get it! thanks! ;^>
damn, it's 5am again...
--
martin;
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
> >
> > You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
> > all I need to do is r
* Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> > > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
> >
> > only since recently... but in general, RPM
> I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just
> don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul.
>
> Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am
> enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-)
while ports serve a certain purpose, i much prefe
also sprach Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
> I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
> to be as maintainable over the long haul.
which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
> Personally, I have issues with a binary-base
also sprach Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0037 +0100]:
> If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
how long before DEB did RPM exist?
(i don't know the answer. all i know about this is from having
participated (and read) discussions on what should be the LSB stan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
[snip]
> If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
yet, or wasn't the most popular packager.
- --
+
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
func
also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2049 +0100]:
> i hear win2000 and XP improves on some issues, but
> after 8 years of using MS stuff(DOS3.x -> NT4) i left
> and never looked back. i gave them a fair chance, i don't
> think they deserve another.
excuse me? did you *ever* productivel
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
>
> only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
> functionally equivalent. RPM
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
>
> You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
> all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and
> I immediately start
also sprach David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1854 +0100]:
> BTW, I see where you're heading. Yes, obviously, a great build
> environment will significantly ease a maintainer's burdens. But I still
> say that it's on the shoulders of the maintainer :)
but Debian's FHS-accordance is re
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other
things which make .rpm based
> You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix
> suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in
> Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better.
>
> Microsoft Helps!(tm)
yeah me too. about 3 years ago i quit a job at a company
that i was at for abo
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
> > Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
>
> c.f. debian ;)
>
> > Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
>
> www.microsoft.com might
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:34:33 -0600
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
> > nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved.
> >
> > :)
>
> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
Yea
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:16:04AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
> Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
> > IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
> > have the same problem.
>
> Of course, that's a
also sprach Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.0610 +0100]:
> Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
have a look at openoffice.org or star office. what do you dislike about
them? i prefer openoffice btw, it seems faster...
--
martin; (greetings fr
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
> IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
> have the same problem.
Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the
same
problem.
Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
Calyth
On 09/01/02 Robert L. Harris did speaketh:
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
>
> RedHat:
> Desktop Oriented
Wow, I have three Debian desktops and one Debian server. I don't see how
Debian is not desktop oriented too. Hell, at least the complex desktop apps
install 10 times easier than crawling
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
> Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
c.f. debian ;)
> Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
--
martin; (greetings from the h
* Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
>
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision.
Oh no, not another distro war...
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
> Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for
> red
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 04:25 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> > RedHat:
> > No pre-installed install/update tool (apt)
>
> in fact, if you want to use the update service, you'll pay!
>
autorpm
Never used it myself, but it is said to provide functionality similar to apt.
You can ftp updates
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 12:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision. At this point I just have
> the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
> out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris
"Robert L. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RedHat:
> Bug tracking system is not available for searching
While I get the impression that debian's bug system is more open and
more widely used, Red Hat does in fact have one at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ which, as you might gue
The /etc/rc.d/ construction is, AFAIK, a beast of Red Hat origin. Recent
version (starting with 7.x, maybe?) symlink /etc/rc.d/init.d and the
various rc#.d directories directly into /etc as a convenience for people
who are used to the more traditional SysV layout, but functionally it's
always been
also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
> Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
> vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking, /etc/rc.d/* is the proper SysV way, but these days
even RedHat uses /etc/{init,rc?}.d
also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2146 +0100]:
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
not necessarily... it's pretty alround if you ask me. and so is redhat,
> Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production)
> Publicly available bug archive for testing an
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/ vs
/etc/rc.d/*)
what term would be correct?
Thus spake Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> > RedHat:
>
> > System layout is BSD
>
> Nay. IMHO, "SysV layout" ref
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> RedHat:
> System layout is BSD
Nay. IMHO, "SysV layout" refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with
"start" or "stop" arguments, while "BSD layout" refers to some sort of
unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, b
I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision. At this point I just have
the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the
SYSV/BSD is a valid point)
Please feel free to add o
You can add yourself entries in the menus of your window manager.
I use fvwm2 and there are hooks in your .fvwmrc2 that allow you to
customize
your wm. Just read your fvwmrc2 or equivalent, I've never done it but it
should be very easy.
--
Vera Mickael Stagiaire
John Gay writes:
> When potato freezes, then I'll update.
Don't update immediately after the freeze. There is often substantial
breakage then. Wait a few weeks, and watch the lists for warnings.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Do
Thanks for the note about potato, but I am still running slink. I am to new to
Linux and UNIX in general to even attempt to stay at the bleeding edge. When
potato freezes, then I'll update.
I've used alien once or twice before, but thanks for the info. How do you update
the menu manually, though
Thanks for the tip!
"John Gay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage
> this issue.
> StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux
> software as
> well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat
> Europe. I
> almost chok
I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage this issue.
StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux software as
well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat Europe. I
almost choked when I read the following quote from him. "There are
o: William T Wilson
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
>
> > DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
> > cannot think of any reason t
On 28-Oct-1999, Salman Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "PR" == Peter Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PR> Yes it does, but it lacks some of the advanced features of apt.
>
> What advanced features of apt are you referring to ??
>
Some of the points I listed at the start of the emai
ECTED]
Sent: October 27, 1999 3:16 PM
To: William T Wilson
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: just curious about Debian vs Redhat
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
> DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
> cannot think of any reason they
On 27-Oct-1999, aphro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ??
>
You can mix and match the locations where you get the .debs from
(including multiple CDs), and it will automatically pick up the latest
version.
You don't have to use dselect, you can do
i have yet to even touch apt ..whats so good about it ??
i always have used dftp to update my stuff ..works great.
nate
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]--
Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/
Firetrail Internet Services Limited
> It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do.
> The main difference is that you can only get updates from
> priority.redhat.com,
> while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in
> an
> X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day.
Isn
It is called update-agent. It can do almost the same things as apt can do. The
main difference is that you can only get updates from priority.redhat.com,
while apt can get them from any mirror. Update-agent for rh6.1 only runs in an
X session. I'd take debian apt-get any day.
Peter Ross writes
On 27-Oct-1999, Bart Szyszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far
> > the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to
> > get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest
> > one.
>
> * apt (the tool to keep your distribution up to date), it is by far
> the best part of Debian. The best bit about it is its ability to
> get packages from multiple sources and always pick up the latest
> one.
What about up2date, though? I heard it was a program for Red Hat
On 26-Oct-1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at work).
> Both have reasonable tools for managing software (dpkg for Debian, rpm for
> Redhat).
>
> I've also done upgrades for both Debian and Redhat.
> The upgrade I did for Debian took
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, William T Wilson wrote:
> DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are distributed in source form. I
> cannot think of any reason they would work with a RedHat kernel and not a
> Debian kernel, as RedHat doesn't (AFAIK) currently modify the kernel.
well,
http://www.dpt.com/tec
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, aphro wrote:
> - many software products are designed for it and don't support other
> distributions, not just software(applications) but drivers too. examples
> would be drivers for DPT raid controllers and 3com network adapters(the
DPT raid controller drivers, I know, are d
[snip - BEWARE: out of context]
i hear mandrake is good though, some have said mandrake is 'redhat done
right' ..(somewhere along those lines)
[snip - BEWARE: out of context]
When an newbie asks me for a Linux distro I give them Mandrake
and tell them they can get Debian from me when they are
i choose debian because..
- it seems to have the largest number of developers
- it has BY FAR the most binary packages (2000+ in slink 4000+ in potato)
- it is well respected as being a stable and secure linux
i have not, do not, and will not choose redhat because ..
- many software products are
n any other
OS other than microsoft.
-paul
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999
1:07 AMTo: debian-user@lists.debian.orgSubject: just
curious about Debian vs Redhat
I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (
I've used both Debian (at home) and Redhat (at
work).
Both have reasonable tools for managing software
(dpkg for Debian, rpm for Redhat).
I've also done upgrades for both Debian and
Redhat.
The upgrade I did for Debian took several nights and a few
e-mails.
The upgrade for Redhat took abo
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 02:29:34PM -0400, Bryan Scaringe wrote:
> I never did get the dhcpcd client (the new one, with 2.2.x support) under
> either RedHat or Debian. But dhclient is a much cleaner program.
Its in the dhcpcd-sv package in potato. The init script is really
clever, it won't start dh
->> who have administered both dists.
I have administered both boxes. As mentioned with redhat you can not use
both linuxconf and edit the scripts by hand. As far as the scripts with
redhat once you inderstand how they are put together you can edit them by
hand just as easy as another dist. My big
My reason for moving from RedHat (5.2) to Debian was configurability.
I have a cable modem, and connect to the internet via a DHCP client.
Redhat uses "dhcpcd" for this, as does most of the rest of the linux world.
Hoverver, after going to 2.2.x kernels, dhcpcd 0.70 croaks. I couldn't get
1) Ease of upgrade was a big decider for me (I switched over 2-1/2 years
ago--I can't speak for recent Red Hat releases). With Debian you can
upgrade a running system. Red Hat required booting with the equivalent
of a rescue disk in order to upgrade.
2) In spite of all the complaints it gets, I
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Steve Stancliff wrote:
> as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been
> over-customized, I am going
> to reinstall them.
> am going to try and convince my boss that as long as we
> are reinstalling, we
> should switch to Debian. I have my list of
Hi all,
I use Debian at home. At work we are gradually switching from Windows to Linux,
and a redhat
system (6 machines) has been running for about 3 months. In a couple of weeks I
will be taking over
as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been
over-customized, I am
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo