Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Don't dismiss slack. Someone out there released a more advanced packaging tool for use with it. Look around, if you can't find it I will hunt it down and post a link.

Another comment: Just cause someone wants to make a buck on an effort that is quite complex and extensive, that doesn't really mean that they have a bad attitude. If people'll pay, then make'em. That whole Supply & Demand thing.

I did, and I'm very happy about it.

I keep a bunch of firewalls running and Redhat update was too much hassle. I reached the same conclusion you seem to be.

try

Morphix light to install
Synaptic package manager for _everthing_ else

Bo

Not sure if you've looked at it before, but don't count out Gentoo. I've got it running on a few boxes, and have been very impressed. Fast (once installed), easily upgraded, and very easily customized. Nice package manager to boot. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary, but if you're looking to change distro's completely, it's worth a look.

Is Mandrake following suit?

I've had the Fedora CD's sitting on my kitchen table waiting for my lame ass to rewire my ethernet connection to my new office and relocate my boxes which have been sitting unplugged for 2 months now. Fedora install is project number one as soon as I get motivated. As an aside I'm trying out the whole Mono thing and wanted to start on Fedora first. You know why try to isolate problems to one change when you can do a whole handful at the same time?

I changed over a server from RedHat to Debian a while ago and have been very happy with the change. Redhat was giving me the sh*ts with having to download rpms and install them manually, and the gcc and glibc fiascos hurt me lots. It got to the stage where I didn't trust rpm dependencies :)

When I had the opportunity of rebuilding the machine (we needed new hardware anyway) I jumped at the chance to run debian. Haven't looked back! Yes, some of the packages are older versions, but they are well tested. 2.4 kernels [b]are[/b] in the apt-repositories and there's a nice how-to 2.4 kernel and ext3 on the debian site that I have followed on a couple of boxes to enable ext3 on them.

[url=http://qref.sourceforge.net/Debian/reference/ch-kernel.en.html]debian ext3/2.4 kernel howto[/url] (sourceforge mirror, see 7.2.4)

[url=http://www.apt-get.org]www.apt-get.org[/url] and [url=http://www.rpmseek.com]www.rpmseek.com[/url] are great places for finding packages for software that isn't in debian stable -- including newer versions of packages backported to the current debian stable (woody) distribution.

Well that's my $0.02 on server distros... I'm a definite Debian fan now.

But I'm in the market for a desktop distro (where having the latest and greatest KDE/GNOME etc is actually important) but I want to be able to just use the machine, not spend hours recompiling or reinstalling stuff all the time. Any advice from people? Debian unstable? mdk?

[%sig%]

For at least the last two distros I think Mandrake has basically been its own shop. Business wise they're centerred in France and technically their urpmi system is independent of redhats rpm system (and better imho).

There's a lot of sharing between the varios distros but you cant really call mandrake a redhat clone any more.

bo

imho

Highly recommend it. I have been running debian unstable for a few years now with few problems. Don't let the name upset you, it is actually rather easy and stable. There might be a minor problem about a newer version of some package not wanting to install with dependency issues but that normally gets settled out in a few days. So in all rather stable and rather cutting (not quite gentoo's bleeding) edge

I've enjoyed Libranet (Debian) and Gentoo for doing things the hard way, and Mandrake for I-just-want-it-to-work. Gentoo will be faster when installed, but will take a long time to get there. Both are stable, highly configurable, and well...great.

I've tried installing Debian several times now and it all comes down to not supporting my Intel network card and Generic Nvidia video driver. Now with these two complications I find it impossible to even get it installed. I'm sure jumping through several hoops I'd be able to find the e100 module, put it on a floppy and have a wonderful install of Debian, but since Sarge is due out in December or so I figure it's best to wait. In the meantime I've been using Fedora, the new free Red Hat, of course without support. There are still free ways to get support through newsgroups. My recommendation is go with what works for you.

I've actually been thinking about the same issues. I'll admit I use my system mainly as a workstation, but the issues you mention seem oddly familiar. The reason I ditched Red Hat is exactly the one you mention...

I did try Debian, and actually got as far as having a working machine on Debian Unstable, but it was a real pain to do so. Of course, it was a pleasure after that.

If you are looking for options, I'd suggest you take a close look at Libranet (Debian based) and at Mandrake (which uses it's own rpm-based package manager, called urpmi). At present, I am using Mandrake 9.2 and loving it.

Since you said that you will be doing custom compiles ... go Gentoo!

It is my choice. I left debian for Gentoo.

Use 'distcc' for distributed compiles. Then make an 'ebuild' on one system to install as a precompiled package on all other systems.

enjoy
tj

I have absolutely no experience with RH whatsoever.

Nor do I want to.

After being fed up with the Windoze environment, and hearing about the new possibilities of the Linux world, I introduced myself to Linux via Debian.

First of all, you do indeed have a very well supported 2.4 kernel under the Woody 3.0 "stable" distribution.

Since I have no experience with the RH packaging environment, I can't compare - however Debian does have an EXTRAORDINARY package management system. You can add, update, and remote packages at will - and it's unbelievable how easy it is to re-install something at a default configuration - especially when comparing to my previous Windoze experiences.

I may explore some other distros to see what they offer - but I've got a very difficult time justifying that. Debian offers a community environment that I think is quite unique. Granted, sometimes the tech support is worth what you pay for - but this is a volunteer effort and they do expect you to TRY to read the voluminous documentation (although you have to find it first!).

If you want a least a sharper edge - you can always try the "unstable" release". I'm running four workstations and two servers in a production environment under unstable - with no problems (though I haven't tried the 2.6 kernel yet). And if you want CUTTING edge - people are usually releasing their own packages with just-compiled stuff.

At the moment, really the only other distro that interests me is Xandros. It's based on Debian (major plus!), integrates Codeweaver's CrossoverOffice, and adds a very slick GUI and file manager.

The biggest problem I've had is the lack of documentation - not necessarily for Debian, but for Linux in general and most of the products I'm using (or trying to learn). No one's written a book yet titled, "How to migrate from and replace an existing Windows network using (Debian) Linux, including Office, Fax, Internet, Database, and Business applications".

But I'm taking notes - I may write it yet.

Still learning . . .
Linux Newbie

I'll put my vote in for Gentoo also. I have a lot of RH servers under my belt (and RHCE too.) I don't mind paying for RH Enterprise Linux for a couple of the more critical ones. I didn't even mind paying the yearly RHN for several others to keep them up to date more easily.

But without some gaurantee that there will be a supported (at least with patches and security updates) free version I'm jumping ship on most of my servers.

The things I like about gentoo:
- Compiled for your PC
- Only what you want gets installed
- No real "upgrade" cycle... you upgrade components as new ones are relased... when the next "version" of Gentoo is released, you find that you are "magically" already up to date.
- "Package" management is a snap IMHO.

The only thing that may make gentoo harder for some less technical folks may be updating config files after you upgrade a package. But it's still actually a bit better than RH's way of dropping *.rpmnew files wherever it wants that you have to find and incorporate any changes from.

BTW.. another post complains that gentoo is less stable because it is compiled from source. Huh? ALL the distros are compiled from source at some point! And gentoo developers seem to do a pretty good job of picking decent compile options for their defaults.

Hi,

I've been using Mandrake for the past year on several computers, and I highly recommend it. I've used Red Hat for years, but Mandrake blew it away with two things: urpmi (the package manager), and its awesome workstation support.

As others have noted, 9.1 is a great distribution. For servers, you can lock it down with the Bastille-Linux script. It has recent server versions, easy updates to Apache 2.0.47, Postfix, etc. There's only been a couple packages I've had to install from source--most common servers install with a single urpmi command, downloading the software and all the dependencies, installing them with all the necessary startup scripts, and starting them for you.

9.2 has some quirks, as others have noticed. I have not found anything in 9.2 that makes it a compelling upgrade for server use over 9.1--but I think it's worthwhile for desktop use. 9.2 finally fixed power management on my Toshiba laptop, it comes with OpenOffice.org 1.1, and Evolution doesn't have the big memory leak I seem to be hit with from the Texstar package for 9.1.

Give it a try!

--John

[%sig%]

I use Debian servers, in a production environment, and have had nothing but good things to say about it.

One thing that's not mentioned in any of the posts above, is that you can actually run a Stable Debian server, and selectively install packages from Testing or Unstable (I recommend from Testing though). Better still, when you need to update the system, apt-get will intelligently recognise the packages you've installed from Testing, and search for updates on them from Testing.

I run four production servers with this hybrid Stable/Testing combination, and it works beautifully! It's the best of both worlds ... great system stability with the latest daemon software, and all automatically maintainable via the package system.

gday atrox,

debian is definately alot smaller cleaner tighter than redhat

its fairly much just as compatable with software made for redhat and mandrake.
i say also cause some gits like ximian
only allow the installer to detect and work on rpm based systems ;<

as a system admin running debian for a few years now, here is some comments of mine

using woody (stable) or sarge (testing)
are just as stable in there own rights,
i run production /testing/ development
server, workstations, routers and firewalls

u can have a woody core base of packages
but have some appz installed from sarge aswell

you can still dist-upgrade (upgrade the entire OS to the latest)

id recommend running sarge with 2.4.20 .21 or .22 or 2.6.0-test8
for samba nfs proxy and apt-mirror servers

if u wanted nfs and networking advantages u would maybe like to look at 2.6.0-test9
atleast in a testing server

i used to use redhat and mandrake a long time ago, but i switched to debian and it was alot easier to upgrade install and maintain softwares with ease a majority of the time

theres also alot of third party mirrors for deb packages like www.apt-get.org

dpkg is the package manager

apt is a front end
tasksel is a front end
dselect is a front end

its not best to use a combination of the front ends when your new to this, best to just stick to apt*

hope that helps

;)

kind regards
REd

(1) Mandrake is a very polished end-user desktop. Just like RedHat, if you want everything to work out of the box, get used to formatting and reinstalling, since no upgrade in the world can be expected to resolve all the dependencies on your system after you install a few third-party RPMs. Plan on blowing away your third party RPM stuff, at a minimum, before doing any upgrades.

(2) As far as dependency management, and ability to apply bugfix and security patches only without going to the latest versions of software, nothing beats Debian. For most servers, the debian Stable branch is hard to beat. Mandrake can't touch Debian here, although mandrake is a little easier to install , Debian is loads easier to maintain. What you find is that you end up wasting a lot MORE time maintaining Mandrake and RedHat than it would have taken you to just install Debian, which is a joy to use, even if it takes a little bit more work "out of box" to get things nice.

(3) For learning Linux and for general goofing around, nothing (IMHO) beats Debian unstable (the bleeding edge repository, with the latest and greatest ports of everything).

(4) If you are a corporate user, get over yourself, and admit that either you're paying a salary to an extra horde of IT people to manage your current IT mix, or you're contracting some of those things out to third-parties. Linux is no different, well, except that it is lots cheaper than Windows Server 2003, and at the end of the day, you still have the full source code. RedHat has simply *got* to deliver value to you, or you just won't renew your support contracts, etc. Could Microsoft deliver this kind of service and this kind of open-ness? Not on your life. RedHat appears to have the Enterprise Linux brand name, and the hardware partnerships that can help you out. IBM seems to be pretty active in this space too. I don't see much evidence of success, but UnitedLinux was intended to be a player in this space, although I would stay 100 miles away from UnitedLinux, since SCO peddles it.

Warren Postma
Toronto Canada

I would seriously consider Slackware 9.1. I, like you, was a Red Hat fan since version 5.0. I have tried many, many Linux distros but have always come back to Red Hat. Now that I've tried good old Slack I am hooked. It's simple to use, install, it is rock-solid stable and if you install Swaret, you can do all the distro upgrades on the fly as well, just like Debian. And if you like a nice, cool GUI install Dropline GNOME. It's drop-dead gorgeous! Go, Slack, Go!!!

[%sig%]

Debian stable (woody 3.0) already release with kernel 2.4.18

I think you are misreading the changes that are occuring in how Redhat releases software. Basically, with Fedora, redhat has become similar to Debian in how it is put together. It is open and outside users can submit packages, just like Debian. It will utilize apt repositories, just like Debian. I don't know how the maintenance schedule compares with Debian, but I would rather rapid updates than staying in the dark ages.

No, there won't be any official support for Fedora, but Debian doesn't offer any either other than mailing lists and bug tracking systems (not that I know of). These are available for Fedora and are similar to the support us downloaders have always been getting from Redhat. It has worked for me so far, so I can't see why it won't work in the future.

The advantage that Fedora will have over Debian is that it has a corporate sponsor that is interested in it developing at a reasonable rate. Redhat has a financial interest in that they will be including fedora in their commercial releases. This system of open coupled with commercial often produces excellent software (MySQL, Postgresql, OpenOffice, anything from Ximian, etc.). I think long term this will keep Fedora strong and in the present.

Finally, switching to Debian certainly will not make installing/updating easier. I have heard all sorts of install/update horror stories with Debian. The fact is that installs/upgrades are a hard problem, particularly in Linux where users can drastically modify their system. No system is perfect. Nevertheless, I find that if I actually read the release notes that upgrading Redhat isn't too bad. Always a couple of quirks, but always solveable.

'up2date --update'

is too much hassle? Linux is not for you try mac OSX. Its very stable and seems to suit you perfectly.

[%sig%]

I was disappointed at RedHat for a number
of years when they would not ship KDE.
They finally came to their senses around
7.2, 7.3, I was quite happy..., vanilla KDE.
Then came bluecurve... ugh...

In the last year people, have started really
cracking linux boxes... You really need to
to patch now... apt-get just works better
than up2date, fedora & apt-rpm notwithstanding,
because package availability is so much
greater in Debian. Plus there is the free iso
image issue you mentioned.

It added up to me doing the same switch
in the past month. 2 down, 1 to go.
Did woody, keeping the default as "stable"
while keeping access to testing.
got XFree86 4 from testing,
kde 3.1.4 from a kde stable repository.
it's good. from a "net" install, the system
is sooo lean, after adding everything I need
I still am using only 1.5 Gig's in /.
Very happy. Last one to go is going to be
the server.

[%sig%]

First of all, definitely give Debian a go. Once you've experienced the goodness of Apt and friends it's almost impossible to go back.

Some comments about your situation:

Distribution upgrades
=====================
Debian provides amazingly smooth upgrades. There are many people out there who installed Debian many years and versions ago, and just keep upgrading on the fly. The necessity of a clean re-install is almost unheard of in Debian.

Upgrading multiple machines
===========================
If you manage a server farm of Debian boxes, set up Apt-cacher on a local machine and point all your boxes at it. It's a caching proxy optimised to work with Apt, and can save you heaps of bandwidth and time if you've got a number of similar machines.

Installing 2.4 kernel
=====================
Woody supported installation natively with a 2.4 kernel with Ext3/ReiserFS support, it's just that most people don't know about it because they don't read the instructions on the very first screen that comes up in the installer. I give details of this in my installer walkthrough at [url=http://www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/03]www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/03[/url]

Custom kernel packages
======================
If the pre-supplied 2.4 kernel isn't adequate (for eg, if you need to add those NFS patches) one of the really cool things about Debian is you can build a kernel on one machine, and create a .deb package that you can then use to trivially install it on multiple machines. No need to do it on every machine individually, or to copy all the parts of it across. Once again, I've written a guide about how to do it:
[url=http://www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/21]www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/21[/url]

Debian is wonderful distro, no doubt.There is a lot of difference btwen rh and debian. personally I feel the difference between M$ and rh is same as rh and debian. The problem here is people just dont want to try.
Even if they try, it will be for one time and go back to rh. In late 90's there was a revolutionary migration from M$ to linux. And now rh to debian is required.