[PLUG] Why RedHat?

ed at alcpress.com ed at alcpress.com
Fri Mar 22 18:31:54 UTC 2002


I think you're correct in your assessment but note that this
is the kind of talk that starts religious debates on this list and
most of us want to avoid these pointless debates. I suggest
that you use the distribution that you like best and works
best for you but minimize any discussion that appears to
criticize other popular distributions. Some people here have
little tolerance when their preferred distribution is attacked
and we all pay the price in increased traffic to the list.

Ed

On 22 Mar 2002, at 10:10, 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
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
> 
> > Derek Loree wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "J.A. Henshaw" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>I never could figure out how this logic is justified-
> > >>If I have 12 gigs of RAM,  do I need a 12 gig swap file?
> > >>If I have 16 megs of RAM, do I REALLY only need a 16 meg swap??
> > >>Of course this is illogical, particularly obvious when taken
> > >>to extremes as suggested above.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'll have to agree, it seems like the less RAM you have, the bigger the
> > > swap/RAM ratio should be.  Granted that paging to a disk is time
> > > consuming, at least you would be able to run more than one application at
> > > a time.
> > >
> > > I recommend using a swap partition (placed on the fast part of the drive)
> > > instead of a swap file.
> > >
> > >
> > >>How about the more RAM you have,  the smaller the swap file
> > >>you need?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It also seems that with a large amount of RAM, and (a) fixed swap
> > > partition(s) there is no reason to limit your swap space.  The main reason
> > > I can see for setting your initial swap space equal to your RAM is the
> > > partition scheme (I never leave free space on a drive, I paid for the
> > > whole thing, I want to be able to use the whole thing). If the system
> > > needs it, there it is, if it doesn't, no performance lost because the swap
> > > exists.
> > >
> > > BTW, we have a dual proc PIII with 1Gig of RAM, running apache, mysql,
> > > postgresql, php and some other fun stuff, been up for over 80 days, never
> > > touched the swap file (better than 600Megs are used for cache).
> > >
> > > Just another $0.02
> > >
> > > Derek Loree
> > >
> >
> > Ditto with my dual 366 512 meg system 0K swap in use, 245
> > megs free, lotsa stuff running etc
> >
> > I agree on using the real estate you paid for,  but I
> > thought I'd bring the whole thing up because somewhere
> > there's someone starved for space running twice his ram is
> > swap who may not realize it may not be necessary to reserve
> > so much room.
> > Especially now that RAM is so cheap and we all have as much
> > as we can squeeze in.
> >
> > jH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PLUG mailing list
> > PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> 






More information about the PLUG mailing list