23 Jun
2004
23 Jun
'04
12:02 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Patrick Kaell wrote:
I wouldn't use kernel 2.2 anymore. It doesn't support USB, stateful
packet filtering, iptables, etc. It isn't developed actively anymore.
Even kernel 2.4 only gets a few basic security updates. The Linux world
has shifted to 2.6.
Debian is hard to set up. Slackware is far simpler. But it has no
graphical configuration tools like Fedora or SuSE. It has menu
orientated tools like FreeBSD. The installer looks like FreeBSD's
installer (even the colors are the same). There are menu based config
tools you start at any time:
netconfig (for configuring the network)
pppsetup (for configuring modems)
xwmconfig (for selecting the desktop environment)
liloconfig (for configuring the boot manager)
pkgtool (for managing packages)
I have uploaded the Slackware Book on my site (you can have a look):
http://www.kayoon.net/kaell/slackware-book.zip
(even the unstable branch). It is a matter of
taste. I know that many
people on this list like it, and I am sure that they know why. You
already have experience with Debian. You have asked what distros other
people might use und the reasons why. I have taken the opportunity to
talk about distros which haven't got much coverage on this list.
Actually, I don't know Debian, I've only decided to give it a try. I am
also sceptical about its not being up to date (the stable branch uses a
2.2 kernel). If I get good arguments, I could change my mind. I am
currently reading
about Slackware.
Ok. The boot scripts are very simple, clear and streamlined. Even with
minimal shell knowledge, it is possible to read *and* understand them.
That doesn't mean you have to read them to use the system. It is
possible for a novice to install the system in a half an hour. With
Debian, this is IMHO not possible. But it is not the right distro for
someone who has never used the command line in any way (this also
applies to Debian). For those people, Fedora or SuSE might be better. As
long as the graphical tools work, it is ok. But if there is any problem
which can not be solved with SuSE's graphical interface (which is only a
matter of time) you have to open the command line anyway. If this
happens, Slackware will be far easier than any other distro.
But I'd certainly like to stick with only one
distribution in the end!
I was able to do it (since 1994). Around 1999-2000, I moved to SuSE 6.2
because Slackware did't get updated often anymore (mainly because of the
libc5 - glibc 2 dilemna). After a year this problem was resolved and I
moved back to Slackware (Slackware 7.0 at this time).
At work, we use RedHat. But I converted some systems to Slackware
(mainly the firewall because of security reasons). We use RedHat at
work, because it is officially supported by Oracle. This doesn't mean
Oracle doesn't run on Slackware, but it isn't officially supported (the
same applies to Debian).
Which one is YOUR favorite, then?
Slackware. If have *tried* to like SuSE and Debian, but I didn't like
them. SuSE because of suseconfig (manual changes get ignored by
suseconfig), nonstandard file layout (boot scripts in /sbin/init.d
instead in /etc/rc.d), etc. and Debian because of its awkward setup and
not being uptodate enough. RedHat/Fedora seems to be a good compromise
because it is commercially supported, easy to setup and manual changes
of config files appear in the graphical tools.
Here is a success story about Slackware:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6695
Patrick Kaell