Re: Problems with Redhat 9

On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 11:57, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> > I never said superior! :) Debian is a great OS! I have just grown into RedHat,
> > and I have come to appreciate the lack of hack and customization time that is
> > usually not needed.
> 
> I disagree on that point; I would say I can build a Debian system faster
> than a RH system (kickstart nonwithstanding); 

I still have some concerns over the balance point with deb's easy of
install of extra package over a network...balanced with the security of
how deb's package grabbing tools work. as far as i know apt doesn't
demand checking of gpg sigs from the repository by default. You have to
know about the sigs and turn the option on. That really scares the crap
out of me. Ease of install and optional verification features. But I
don't know how rational my concern is. I'm jsut imagining how bad it
would be if a heavily deb repository got hacked...how many people using
apt turn gpg checking on?

> apt4rpm or grab of course will change that equation somewhat. :)
> (and I use both).

yum seems popular now too among redhat users. So popular fedora has
version of both apt4rpm and yum...with gpg sig checking enabled by
default. 

> for the home user; RH may be a win, because it gives you lots of choices,
err redhat gives you choices compared to debian? This is pretty contrary
to most of the griping i hear about from home desktop hobbyists  about
the lastest rhl releases. two biggest complaints i hear are 1)why isnt
foobar in the distro 2)why didn't redhat package the isos so that I only
need the first iso to do the install i want to do.

> rather than requiring you to know what you need ahead of time.
this i'll probably agree with. Redhat makes it easy to do a thoughtless
initial install.Dump the cd in the drive go get some coffee.  

-jef