[nmglug] Linux Distributions

[Karl Hegbloom]

On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 09:44 -0700, Aaron Birenboim wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 11:18, wdn at lanl.gov wrote:
> > I have been a Red Hat user for several years but lately have been
> > interested in considering the use of another Linux distribution.  Right
> > now, I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0.  Here is what I am looking
> > for:
> > [...]
> > 2.  A decent installation procedure.
> 
> I think the newer installers (testing or unstable)
> are fine.  They are more for advanced users, but
> if you are on this list, you qualify.

The new Debian installer and the Ubuntu installer based on it is really
easy to use.  It only asks 3 questions if you take the default
partitioning scheme.  The partitioner is very powerful -- it will allow
you to set up RAID, for instance.  With Ubuntu, you get a fully
configured desktop right off the bat.  It supports all Linux file system
types -- ext3, reiserfs, xfs, etc.  The latest Gnome release is there.

Ubuntu 'Hoary Hedgehog', the development branch that will be released
this spring, has the X.org server, replacing XFree86.  Perhaps in a few
ways, it's a little behind Fedora Core, but is catching up fast, as you
can see by the move to X.org.  In the "universe" repository, you'll find
almost all of the software available in plain vanilla Debian, rebuilt by
a build-bot to ensure full compatibility with Ubuntu.  There are most
probably a LOT more packages available than with Fedora Core.

You can install Ubuntu or Debian with only 1 CD.  You don't need to
download 3 CD's in order to install it.

> > 3.  Good package management and installation.
> 
> sure
> 
> > 4.  Staying close to the cutting edge on the software packages.
> 
> Debian stinks here.  It may not be for you.
> You will likely find yourself building some critical stuff
> from source.
> Perhaps a debian-based distro?  Was that Xandros debian based?

I disagree with that statement.  Debian 'stable' is locked in, by
design, that's what "stable" refers to, and as time goes by, newer
releases of the software become available.  If you track 'testing', you
get those new releases very soon after they come out.  The software is
first released into 'unstable', and then if it goes for a certain amount
of time with no critical bug reports filed against it, it is
automatically moved to 'testing'.

"stable" means that the software won't change out from under you in
undefined ways.  You can deploy it and deploy your web site on it, and
know that nothing will change out from under your site code, causing it
to cease functioning correctly.  Only fully compatible security upgrades
are allowed in, unless you explicitly select a package version from
'testing' or 'unstable'.

'unstable' doesn't _usually_ mean "crashes a lot", though that can
happen from time to time, as we all know.  It just means that things are
changing and there's no guarantee given that your own code won't be
broken (and need recompilation or even modification) by a .so library
upgrade.

Ubuntu releases begin as essentially snapshots of selected packages from
Debian 'testing' and/or 'unstable'.  They are worked on to ensure system
integration and upgrade tested to ensure that upgrades from one release
to the next will go smoothly.  It remains 'stable' until the next
release, and releases happen every 6 months.