[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Distributions {Re: SuSE 6.0}
Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo writes:
> > between Red Hat and Debian: Debian to Red Hat is about the same thing
> > that Linux is to Windows. The former is considered harder to install
> [...]
> > companies do; people like the community aspect of it as opposed to the
> > mass market scent of the other; it's considered technically superior
> > by most people who had tried both.
>
> What I just can't understand - how one distribution can be technically
> superior on other.
Frodo, what distributions have you ever used? After using two or three
(for at least a few months), you see that there *is* such a thing as a
technically superior distribution. It's hard to prove by fact because
such technical superiority is just a big collection of small things
you notice while you use the system. Since it's the same kernel and
the same programs, you can't say that distribution X has better memory
management than distribution Y. But the comparison is valid in a lot
of other issues. Mostly they are related to package management and
configuration.
It's very tempting to try to collect these small issues to show to
users of other distributions. I succumbed to this tempt and wrote the
document I mentioned in my previous e-mail. But in reality it may be
just a distraction, because nothing can replace real-life experience.
You can talk all night to a friend about Linux's flexibility/
scriptability/robustness, but he'll never "feel" the power until he
tries it. Right? It's the same with distributions, then. Bite the
bullet and work exclusively with Debian for two or three months. Most
people who take the issue seriously and try {Debian,Linux} instead of
{Red Hat,Windows}, don't go back.
--
Alex Shnitman
alexsh@hectic.net, alexsh@linux.org.il
http://alexsh.hectic.net