[PLUG-TALK] Re: Why RedHat?

Richard Langis richard.langis at sun.com
Fri Mar 22 18:47:03 UTC 2002


Rather than reply to the (main) list, I'll drop this over to plug-talk where a 
somewhat off-topic discussion can be freely realized.  Also CC:ing to a list 
of geeks, some of whom still use RH for servers.  ;)

I started off using Redhat - 4.2 I think it was.  I bought a boxed version of 
5.0, and $2.00 CD's from linuxmall.com of 6.1, which I used up until about a 
year ago as my firewall/gateway OS.

At the time, it was the most 'mature' distribution, and also the most 
recognized.  I believe that most people starting out use either a) what 
they've heard or b) what their friends use.  Probably 90% of the time, that's 
going to be Redhat.

Anyway, about a year ago I join the PLUG list.  Karl, being the rabid Debian 
zealot he is (and I say that in the nicest manner possible!), extolls the 
virtues of appetite and Debian in general.  I've had some issues with wanting 
to install newer software on my RH6.1 box, due to dependency problems.  The 
only way to upgrade a RH installation (at the time) was via a new ISO full 
distribution upgrade.  My little firewall box is...rather small.  No floppy OR 
CD-ROM.  8G HD MAX (BIOS limitation).  So tearing it down, swapping the IDE 
cable, adding a cdrom, floppy, and power from another machine (150w-ish PS) to 
drive the additional peripherals is a heruclean task.  Not to mention sitting 
there and making sure the install goes well...all with 4 kids tearing around 
behind me.

So I get a glimpse of what Debian and apt-get can do, vicariously through 
Karl.  I ask a simple question - can I install an old copy of Debian (2.0-ish) 
on my box, then apt-get dist-upgrade to the latest version without tearing 
down my box again?

The answer is YES and so within the week I'm tearing into my box and 
installing Debian.  I've never looked back.

The only thing that I've heard is 'better' with the RH or MDK distros is that 
XFree86 is more up-to-date and the install is more graphically pleasing and 
perhaps easier.  I didn't have any troubles with installing Debian, however, 
and I don't use X on my servers (they're in a closet with a crappy 14" VGA 
monitor).

So, while Your Mileage May Vary, for me, and my particular situation, Debian 
and apt-get is the way to go.

-Richard

T.T.F. Creelan wrote:

> I was wondering why most, or at least many, of the people who write on
> this list use Red Hat. It seems like RH is considered the
> standard linux distribution in other circles as well.
> 
>>From what I saw of it a few years ago, (version 7.0) it didn't seem to
> support any special features not supported by Debian. And after
> using Debian's APT for a while, it's difficult for me to imagine using
> an OS without it. The 'rpms' don't seem very useful; you still have to
> find the program's dependencies and download/update them, it would seem.
> And while I understand there is some kind of apt-like program for RH, its
> use doesn't seem very prevalent.
> 
> I've heard that RH is easier to install, but when I tried it (v7.0) it
> didn't seem any easier than Debian. Perhaps it has improved in recent
> versions. Also ease of installation seems like a poor reason to choose an
> OS, given that this is a one-time experience, whereas installing and
> updating programs on the OS is continual.
> 
> Also, while I can see how Red Hat's tech support could be useful, none
> of the RedHat users I've met have ever utilized it.
> 
> I don't mean to provoke an argument, I'm just curious why people use Red
> Hat when (from what I can see) Debian is a better distribution.
> 
> 
> Tyler, linux newbie






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list