[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a small distribution pingpong



On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Ira Abramov wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Guy Cohen wrote:
> 
> > > in what way does this NOT describe redhat?
> > 
> > i the way that redhat is for guys that like there os ready and preperd to go.
> 
> let me rephrase: what does Slackerware offer you that is better than RH?
> any sources that won't compile? any configurations that won't be possible?

The semantics of these sentences are opposite, but I infer the 'right'
way: Slackware can compile ANY RH package, SRPM or not. RH has one hell of
a lot of troubles to pick up a tgz from somewhere on the web and compile
it without the poor man fudging library links etc.

MOST development and expermiental packages come as tgz, AND that is the
native mode under Slackware, just as any UNIX (well, ok, tar.gz). So, in
my eyes, using Slackware is closer to UNIX than RH, which I notice with
pleasure every time I use the shell account on actcom (Sun OS). I don't
want to think about how I can move a RH package to Sun, and back after
porting.

> OTOH: many redhat features are not mirrored in slack.

Knowing what I have said above, quote one.

> > Its a fact, and well known one, that slackware is more secure then redhat.
> 
> never heard of it before... where is it said? what are the details please?

Search dejanews for 'cracked Linux RH' and 'cracked Linux Slackware'. I
did not but it should. Consider that Slackware is about 1:3 vs. RH.

> > the only reason redhat is more widely installed
> > is because of its becoming an out of the box OS.
> 
> and that's a bad thing?

May I suggest Fry's for shrink-wrapped brown smelly substance-like things
that cost a lot of money and make our lives steenk ?

Let's not start an advocacy war in public guys.

Peter