[nmglug] Installing apt on RH8

[Andreas]

That was very informative and convincing, Karl, thanks!  :-)

btw, after being very happy with my Debian install on my laclinux laptop 
from Gary, I tried to install Debian on my workstation about 6 months 
ago. I used the new installer for testing (back then beta, now a release 
cadidate, I believe) and it was so easy, that I don't even remember 
anymore what I had and did not have to do. Definitely searching packages 
wasn't a problem, i chose a meta-bundle of packages the installer (or 
aptitude) offered. Everything else I needed later was extremely easy to 
'apt-get'. All hardware got detected without a problem.
To me the installer is no excuse anymore to not go with Debian.



Karl Hegbloom wrote:

>Mainly that quite a lot of systems integration work has been done, and
>that the installer leaves you with a complete working Gnome Desktop
>Environment, rather than a bare-bones base system.  So instead of
>spending another hour or two selecting the desktop stuff you want,
>something that requires a certain amount of expertise, you can get right
>to work.
>
>The Gnome Desktop is very nicely configured.  It works a lot better than
>the stock Debian version of it.  Hotplugging Just Wroks.  The first user
>created, during install, has a 'sudoers' entry, and is an admin user who
>can use the 'sudo' command at will.  I gather that Mac OS X does
>something similar.  I don't even know the root password anymore.  In
>fact, it's actually locked.
>
>The development branch, Hoary Hedgehog, has the X.org server, replacing
>XFree86.  It works a lot better -- my fonts are crisper and easier to
>read, and GLX has DRI finally.  I could never get that to work under
>XFree86.
>
>  
>
>>I gather they make distributions available regularly. Are upgrades as 
>>easy and continuous as now on Debian with apt-get?
>>    
>>
>
>Upgrades work the same way.  They have their own repository, and do work
>on many of the packages that they always, by policy, submit directly
>back to Debian.  There is a "main" repository, containing core supported
>packages, and a "universe" one containing mostly unsupported material,
>which is almost but not all of the remainder of Debian take out Ubuntu
>"main".
>
>They promise to release every six months, and have a security archive
>for emergency package releases.  Upgrades from one release to the next
>will probably work very reliably.  There will be a thing where you put
>the upgrade CD in, and it automatically recognizes that CD and offers to
>perform the upgrade.  Or, you can simply use 'synaptic', 'aptitude', or
>'apt-get'.
>
>You can buy a support or support escalation contract from Canonical
>Limited, if that's a requirement of your IT department.  They encourage
>other companies to offer support contracts as well, optimistically
>expecting a large demand for such.  The community support is also very
>good, and actually accessible.  (Answers go to the list and lists
>archive... you can find them later without purchasing a Red Hat
>product...  Many times when I've googled and gotten a hit from a Red Hat
>e-mail support list, I see the question but the answer went back in
>private e-mail.)  You can also probably use all of the Debian resources,
>for things not Ubuntu specific.  They have a great Wiki happening also.
>
>I think that the whole process is much more "open" than the Fedora
>project is.  Being based on Debian, Ubuntu benefits from the inheritance
>of those years of development and refinement of the Debian system, plus
>the help of all 500+ (last time I checked; was quite a while ago)
>volunteer engineers in Debian.
>
>The "Ubuntu" concept is nice.  I like the idea of "people are people
>only through other people".  We share, and they share, it benefits all.
>
>
>  
>
>>Is stability better?
>>    
>>
>
>If you stick with the release version, it's rock solid.  If you track
>the development version, it changes out from under you from time to
>time, and things are occasionally broken then fixed again a few days
>later, much like tracking Debian unstable.  Tracking the development
>release is fun if you're into it and know how to fix things when they
>break, but if you have work to do, stick to the stable release.
>
>Remember that "stable" and "unstable" refer to changing software, not
>buggy software.  Stable just means that the system is set up and you're
>not changing to new versions or rebuilds of software every other day.
>Unstable means things are moving and changing, as they work on getting
>the best configuration whilst performing the systems integration magic
>dance -- it rocks the boat a little.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nmglug mailing list
>nmglug at nmglug.org
>http://www.nmglug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmglug
>  
>