> Steven Black wrote:
> > Personally, I think source-based distributions are a step
> > backward. [...]
>
> I don't think I could make a blanket statement like that. If we were
> talking about Slackware, yes, I'd say it's a step backwards. I wouldn't
> say the same for Gentoo, however (or even FreeBSD).
You are correct. On a machine with plenty of resources, with a full source
tree in hand and decent package management source-based solutions could be
better than a binary-based solution.
Without decent package management, a source-based solution is just total
crap (except for the learning experience). I think I've seen too many bad
binary package management systems to expect much from a package management
system for a source-based solution. I know I've done too much maintenance
on that old Solaris box with GNU Stow to think a source-based solution would
be more fun than a binary one.
Also, unless you have a specific hardware upgrade path, and the financial
resources to make that hardware upgrade path a reality, any source-based
solution runs the risk of running out of system resources to keep it a
viable alternative to its binary competition. You can find yourself in a
state where due to increased customer demand you no longer have the hardware
resources you once had and then big compiles become more and more noticable
to your end users.
In any sort of constrained resource environment, binary packages can be
a great help. I tend treat all my systems like they'll be constrained
resource environments before I'm through with them. This has certainly
always been the case for my home machines.
> I have been (was) a fan of Debian for years. The Debian Project seems
> to be falling apart, however, due to all the politics. With Debian you
> have your choice of rock-solid software that's a few years old, or
> bleeding-edge software that can potentially (and will, eventually) hose
> your system.
Yes, this is the same reason I started looking at alternatives to
Debian several years back.
I must admit I've not used Red Hat in 10+ years. (Back before RPMs
had dependancy support, and the recommended upgrade procedure was
to -- at best -- boot to a CD to upgrade, or at worst to backup
your data and install from scratch. This was when after an RPM
install you always had to manually configure every package as there
was no easy install time configuration for anything. This was back
when Red Hat arbitrarily changed names and install paths of installed
compontents between revisions while seemingly trying to avoid growing
standards.) I know RHEL is very popular. My distaste for them isn't
something that has any sort of current foundation, and may well not
even have any sort of valid foundation at this time.
It is counter-productive to the Debian community to run Debian
sid/unstable. You can do it if you're an active Debian developer,
but any random user that does it only slows progress. The
overwhelming number of people who do it are hurting the product,
and are responsible for the slow progress toward new stable
releases.
That being said, I like to use up-to-date software and try out new
software features like the next person. I like software to be updated
regularly. I like software to be stable, even if I don't get the
latest software right when it comes out.
I've been very happy with Ubuntu. The Debian framework has a history
of smooth, painless upgrades. Ubuntu has releases regularly, so I get
new software when it is ready, even if it isn't immediately after it
is released. The Ubuntu folks are focused on the enterprise market,
and features specially suited for that market will only increase as
time goes on. (For instance, they're working on a product to compete
with RHN.)
Cheers,
Steven Black
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment