Re: linux

[Scott Yellig <syellig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >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?)


>
> 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.