[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new debian packages - what iss so good about Unix/X
> The truth is that is what I wanted to hear :{)
> RH packages make you stupid. People ask - my God
> it is not rpm - I can not click on it in glint to
> install it - so I can not use it ?!?
That's true. People should always remember how important sources
are in the Unix world.
> Or I just take some contrib rpm, and without knowing
> what exactly it will do I'll install it.
Wrong. I can ALWAYS know what an RPM contains or does if I want
to. `man rpm` will reveal the switches.
> Do you remember Ira's contrib Perl accident?
> His system was screwed AFAIR. I built rpms package myself and
> I know that it is easy to make rpm, and it is very easy
> to make it the way it will screw something because your
> lack of knowlegde. I hope original rpms form RH are more safe
> than mine :{)
What does Ira's contrib Perl accident have to do with rpm? He could
have installed it by compiling the sources and screwed up his system
just the same way. Besides, that's exactly why it's called 'contrib'.
> AFAIK what is so wonderfull about Unix/X is that you
> can run the same program from Alphas, Suns and to PCs
> if just have sources. RPM is somehow hides this Unix / X
> advantage. *.rpm and *.deb reminds me trials of MS, Netscape
> and other big guys to fource us to use its products by
> 'extanding' standarts, and making them incompatable with
> others. Remember - "best viewed with Netscape/IE" ?
While I agree that having .deb and .rpm is bad and that the two
parties should cooperate for the best interests of Linux, this has
NOTHING to do with Netscape/IE. Again, rpm distributes source rpms,
and the architecture is as free as anything else in Linux.
> Most modern programs come with autoconf/imake or some similar
> tool, with wich you can easily compile it on almost any
> known Unix platform.
Yeah, right. I'm sorry, but from my experience with source distributions
I'd much prefer a tested, stable binary distribution if there is one.
Which is exactly what Debian and Red Hat are trying to create.
> I'm not saying that everybody should compile gcc or XFree,
> but binary packages IMHO should come in tar.gz So I can use
> it in any system. After all what is package - it is binary files +
> dependencies files + installation scripts. I know a lot of people
> who had to install rpm in non RH Linuces just to install some RPM
> package, which comes without source.
So you're passing up dependencies and installation scripts like that!
I cannot think of a development that made my life easier in the near
past more than package dependancies. All the mess that used to
dominate my machine was reduced to almost complete order. Not that
I can't make it chaotic if I want to.
> Did you know that....
> - You can install FreeBSD, without CD, from *ONE* floppy
> by ftp/ppp?
So can RH, if I remember correctly. Furthermore, RH can install
WITHOUT floppyies if you have the CD and DOS running (with
autoboot, using the initrd ramdrive).
> - You can synchronize your whole system source code ( not only
> kernel ) with any FreeBSD branch -stable -current or any other?
Which is kind of like upgrading your binary distributions by
popping in the next Redhat release CD. Expect that you don't get
the sources (so get the srpms).
> - You can recompile the whole system ( not only kernel ) by just
> 'make world'
I don't want to sound mean, but if you have the space to contain
the entire FreeBSD sources on your hard disk, FreeBSD must be very
small ;-) And besides, where exactly does that become useful?
Shay
--
Shay Rojansky, roji@cs.huji.ac.il Finger for PGP public key
Follow-Ups:
References: