Re: linux

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>>i started with slackware and that's pretty much all i've used, but i've 
>>>heard redhat is alot better in some ways.
>>Some people beleive Red Hat is packaged in a superior way, and that it's 
>>easier to install. In general, distributions differ primarily by how they 
>>are packaged and installed, and more recently, by what basic run-time 
>>libraries are required.  This second difference is largely viewed as a 
>>problem which needs fixing, and Linux distributors are moving towards consen-
>>sus on this issue.
>
>Debian is taking an interesting approach to making the switch from libc5
>to libc6 (glibc). In there current development distribution, which will be
>their first libc6 dist, they include a hacked libc5 which does things like
>utmp access in the same way that libc6 does. This allows you to run both
>libc5 and libc6 programs on the same system seamlessly. In the end this
>will probably end up like the libc4 to libc5 jump that was made a year or
>two ago. Eventually youll just want to switch to the libc6 version of
>everything, and trash all your libc5 based libs. (i believe this is the
>lib problem you were speaking of, right?)
Yes. It became really clear to me how serious this problem was when Bruce
did a demo of SUSE and discovered he could not move executables between that
and Red Hat!  This problem has been the topic of a number of editorials 
(posted on freshmeat, see out web site link page) inthe last few weeks. The
most recent one is from The head of Linux International, who cites "The 
Debian Solution" as one good way out of this problem.  Apparently most of the 
Linux distributions are going to fall into line on a standard for this fairly 
shortly. I urge everyone to look at this editorial and related links.

>> Red Hat appears to come with a broader selection of software; 4.2 and 5.0
>> ship as 2 CDROMS, 5.1 ships as 3. SUSE ships as FOUR, with a full install
>> taking up to 9 Gb!
>Debian's very base install fits in like 20 megs :).. but thats enough to
>boot and shutdown, and do file management with bash. I believe a full
>install of that will also go up into the gigs as well.
This is also fairly true of a stripped-down version of RH Linux. 

While we're talking about the few differences, it needs be said that there 
are many many more similarities between Linux systems than there are differ-
ences. In principle, once a Linux system is set up, it doesn't matter a bit.
I can email code written on my Red Hat box to Scott, and he will be able
to compile it on his Debian box w/o any real problems. If I know his library
set, I will be able to send him some executables, knowing they'll run.  Apps
that download off the net will have their own install procedures, and if
they have been written well and according to some standards, they will com-
pile, install and run on any Linux (and moany other Unix) boxen. The steps
being taken as outlined in the editorial will ensure that this kind of porta-
bility is preserved and extended.

                                                      Regards, 
                                                       ---> RGB <---