[SGVLUG] FC repository searches

[Dustin Laurence]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:47:52PM -0700, Jeff Carlson wrote:
> Dustin Laurence wrote:
> 
> If that's true, and I'm not positive it is

I haven't ever tried it from Knoppix for the reason stated, but I have
from DSL and though it claims to install as Debian it had apt-get
issues.  In any case, I've never heard of a problem starting from a
genuine Debian install, so the circumstantial evidence is that either
Knoppix isn't a good way to install Debian or you botched the install.
I'm guessing the former.

> ...then Knoppix should not
> advertise its installer as installing Debian.  How is someone like me to
> know the difference?

I don't know, I only know that Debian doesn't control Knoppix or any of
it's other children.  I agree it hurts Debian's rep. if it claims to
"install as Debian" and is buggy.

> I really don't think that's an RPM vs DEB issue.  It can be done with yum.

I know it can be done, I've even met people (OK, I think one person) who
get away with doing an upgrade rather than a re-install.  I'm talking
about what people *usually* do and trust the system to do.  So give me
another data point--how often do you actually upgrade with yum?  On a
desktop?  On a server you care about?

> I had heard some rumor of being able to use Debian packages in Fedora, I
> think using smart, but again, this scares me.

It scares me a bit too.

> I'm can't necessarily agree there.  I'm glad Debian and RedHat have
> different package managers.  Competition breeds innovation, you know.

At this point I don't think it's buying us anything.  The innovation is
elsewhere, with source-based distros and installers that don't even try
to do things the Unix way (GoboLinux, IIRC, never does an install in the
'make install' sense, it just puts all the files in one package
directory and then populates /etc/ with links).

> > then begins to compete with their commercial product, but Fedora's users
> > and foundation really want it to be server-ready.  This tension isn't
> > resolvable as Fedora is currently constituted, I don't think.
> 
> Yeah, I agree with you there.  Fortunately for companies who want to use
> Fedora as the cheaper alternative, they can pay people like me to
> maintain it for them.

Well, it'll work until and unless RH ever feels it's rice-bowl is
threatened.  Then Fedora will become even more "bleeding edge" or
something.  Hopefully it won't ever happen.

> I'm familiar with the Debian social contract and all, but I haven't dug
> into their website looking for goals like Fedora has published.

Well, one failing of Debian is grossly out-of-date web info.  It's part
of the community thing.  But I guess I thought everyone knew that Debian
Stable was for servers first and nothing else matters, with security and
stability being the main goals.  Come to think of it, maybe it's not as
easy to see as I think, because I already knew it and probably didn't
learn it from a web page.  So you may have a better angle on that than I
do.

Generally, companies do documentation better, and it could well be that
Fedora benefits from that.  I'll probably be finding out soon enough,
unless plans change.

> I wonder if this thread will ever die a normal death.

Why should it, if it's interesting?  Given that I'm likely to be running
Fedora soon, I'm happy to learn some of the less technical things about
it.

Dustin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20060911/34e67074/attachment.bin