Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm having a mass debate here (<g>) about which version of Linux to run my file server and mail server on (bye bye Win 2k! ;-). I was having an e-mail conversation with one of the chaps in our IT department in Germany and said I couldn't make my mind up, but was leaning towards Slackware (I only want a command line version). He replied thus:
"donīt go for Slackware....the only official real "distributions" are Redhat and SuSE. Even Debian does not have RPM based installations as described in the official RFCs.
Redhat will be a very good choice "
Now, whereas I'm sure Redhat or SuSE would be a good choice, surely he's talking bollocks saying the only real distros are RH and SuSE?
actually you should tell him that the first ever distro was Slackware...and its the only one to date that has basically stuck to its truest form, not manipulating too much from the original. and just because a a distro doesn't come with RPM, which stands for Redhat Package Manager, doesn't mean its not a true distro...
Originally posted by trickykid actually you should tell him that the first ever distro was Slackware...and its the only one to date that has basically stuck to its truest form, not manipulating too much from the original. and just because a a distro doesn't come with RPM, which stands for Redhat Package Manager, doesn't mean its not a true distro...
HERE HERE!!! Couldn't have said it better...And tell your freind that once configured, Slacks uptime will beat RH's pants off.
>> HERE HERE!!! Couldn't have said it better...And tell your friend that once configured, Slack's uptime will beat RH's pants off. <<
Hey, I didn't say he's my friend, he's just some guy in our IT department.
Actually, come to think of it he said that Win98SE was fairly stable. That comment is reason enough to realise he might not know what he's on about! <G>
Originally posted by DiBosco
"donīt go for Slackware....the only official real "distributions" are Redhat and SuSE. Even Debian does not have RPM based installations as described in the official RFCs.
Redhat will be a very good choice "
Now here here, giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, he did plug the two market leaders in business angled Linux, and might have dummied down the terms (into a level of falsehood), as IT geeks are prone to over-simplify when they believe they are dealing with a non 'technically literate' computer user.
Or,
He could be a corporate whelp condescending prat who needs to be beaten about the neck and head with the O'Reilly Sendmail book.
Now here here, giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, he did plug the two market leaders in business angled Linux, and might have dummied down the terms (into a level of falsehood), as IT geeks are prone to over-simplify when they believe they are dealing with a non 'technically literate' computer user.
Or,
He could be a corporate whelp condescending prat who needs to be beaten about the neck and head with the O'Reilly Sendmail book.
Cheers,
Originally posted by DiBosco >> HERE HERE!!! Couldn't have said it better...And tell your friend that once configured, Slack's uptime will beat RH's pants off. <<
Hey, I didn't say he's my friend, he's just some guy in our IT department.
Actually, come to think of it he said that Win98SE was fairly stable. That comment is reason enough to realise he might not know what he's on about! <G>
My mistake on the friend thing, sorry. And Win98SE being stable? Well, perhaps it is compared to the other MS products but we all know he CAN'T be comparing it to Linux?!?! Could he? Yikes...
>> My mistake on the friend thing, sorry. And Win98SE being stable? Well, perhaps it is compared to the other MS products but we all know he CAN'T be comparing it to Linux?!?! Could he? Yikes... <<
Actually he was comparing it to 95, which I have found to be better than 98 which is better than ME (are we noticing a pattern here, children? <g>).
I was arguing to get Win2k on my new laptop and he was trying to persuade me it wasn't significantly better than 98. What a load of crap!
Anyway, I'm sure we're not interested in whether one version of Windows is better than another. It's a bit like talking about which way you want to die, none of the options are actually desireable!
He's actually a big fan of Linux to be fair, so he's not all bad!
it all comes down to choice.. that's the beauty of it all! redhat and suse seem to be very 'commercialized' distributions, but frankly there are dozens upon dozens of flavors of linux that are a better over-all choice than w2k - pick one based on the features you need and that's it! there are some great alternatives to the 'mainstream' linux's like trustix (http://www.trustix.net ) that may be just perfect for you.
It's a bit like talking about which way you want to die, none of the options are actually desireable!
Oh, that's good! You've gotta use that as your signature.
Quote:
Now here here, giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, he did plug the two market leaders in business angled Linux, and might have dummied down the terms (into a level of falsehood), as IT geeks are prone to over-simplify when they believe they are dealing with a non 'technically literate' computer user.
Doesn't that really piss you off? It does me. Oh, and I'd also like to cast my vote for the latter method of correctional treatment.
You could use Linux From Scratch($LFS) and not have to worry about what all of the other distro's put in theirs. With $LFS you control what is there. Just a thought . . .
Originally posted by trickykid actually you should tell him that the first ever distro was Slackware...and its the only one to date that has basically stuck to its truest form, not manipulating too much from the original. and just because a a distro doesn't come with RPM, which stands for Redhat Package Manager, doesn't mean its not a true distro...
Ahem ahem!
We have been over this before. I think you must realise by now im anally retentive enough to pick you up on this blunder!
Quote:
Started by Patrick Volkerding, Slackware is based on the older SoftLanding System Linux distribution and was designed to address many of the problems that people were experiencing with SLS, which at the time appeared to have been abandoned by its developers
alright, its not the first but its the oldest still being maintained.. so in my book that is the first cause who cares about the other guys who aren't even in the game anymore..
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.