I’m not upgrading my Fedora Core 2 machine to Core 3, even though the new version has been out for a couple of months. There’s not anything wrong with FC3 itself, it’s just that system upgrades are both a blessing and a curse.
I’m not upgrading my Fedora Core 2 machine to Core 3, even though the new version has been out for a couple of months. There’s not anything wrong with FC3 itself, it’s just that system upgrades are both a blessing and a curse.
ROFL… you should move to gentoo mate… eliminates all those problems in one hit, haven’t hada single dependancy issue since.. and I’ve been through 3 upgrades of the gnome desktop from 2.4 all the way to 2.8… Debian also… same thing.. skips the issue entirely… rpm based distros have always had this problem… I doubt they’ll fix it anytime soon either…
>> blessing and a curse
That’s why I’m using Ubuntu instead of Fedora. Ubuntu == blessing^2
Because despite Fedora being one of the most statistically popular distros, this problem is clearly “using the wrong distro”.
By that the people writing these comments really mean, “using a distro with repositories that are too small” where “too small” is defined as not containing whatever random person X happens to need.
Debian and Gentoo break stuff all the time during an upgrade. You don’t notice as long as you only install popular stuff from the repositories, even if those packages are broken or out of date. As soon as you go outside that, these distros are arguably even worse than Fedora.
Another strange thing that i have noticed is that gentoo and ubuntu users will always be there to hijack a discussion on any other linux distro.
Linux users unite! Fight the real enemies out there!
Heh, another reason I don’t use RPM-based distros.
Heh, another reason I don’t use RPM-based distros.
—-
another clueless comment.
rpm is equal to dpkg
yum/apt4rpm/up2date in fedora, urpmi in mandrake, YOU in suse is equivalent to apt in debian.
i liked debs more than rpms, but i like freebsd’s ports than all of them… and i dont think they are all the same thing (i probably mis understood your posT)
Is there any distro following FHS strictly ?
more than half the posts are about another distro. Keep up the crusade brothers, you shall convert us all with your annoying commercials.
Don’t bother telling them RPM is not the same thing as apt-get they know it, everyone knows it. They just refuse to aknowledge it cause it has been the only advantage they’ve had ever and want to pretend its still only a gentoo/debian thing.
and btw just switch to another distro like ubuntu
When I first installed Gentoo, KDE 3.2 and Xfree 4.3 were available. I now run KDE 3.3.2 on X.org 6.8, all without a hitch.
Think what you want, I have a very clear idea of which distributions work, and which do not…
I find the minimalist distro’s are the best and have given the best success rate in doing upgrades.
Slackware has a simple and decent sized default selection of packages and with the third party programs such as swaret/slapt-get it makes it pretty darn easy to keep up with current and since the system is made with simplicity in mind there isn’t a lot of cruft left behind. One of the reasons I left gentoo.
I liked it a lot, but I don’t like the idea of a messy system after upgrades… it bothers me. There are scripts though that people have written to clean these kind of things up. So it’s not really a problem anymore I suppose.
ArchLinux is also a very nice choice for a distro that can do upgrades and you only have to install it once like debian. It uses Pacman, which handels dependancies very nicely. Still a young project though, but it’s moving nicely. Keep an eye on this one.
As for rpm’s I have no problems with them, but have noticed that the more “developed” distro’s such as Fedora/SuSe/Mandrake all install far too much by default and I don’t like the feeling (as I said earlier) of knowing that some space is being wasted… just feels messy. Eeeww.
just my 2(canadian)cents.
I have used Fedora, Suse etc and recently Ubuntu.
I always end up back with Gentoo.. Why it’s never a issue to upgrade and it just works and it’s easy to find information if things do go wrong.
Ubuntu is much better than Fedora or Suse when it comes to package management (thanks to it’s debian heritage) but Gentoo is still the best. Sure it takes awhile to compile KDE but big deal, KDE is the exception not the rule, most other apps only take a few minutes to compile on a fast Athlon64.
I have been running gentoo on the same box for over two years and I just occasionly run emerge -up world.
What a load of bullshit.
There are 8200 packages in Gentoo’s main repository and about 15000 in Debian’s testing one. While I did not found stats on Fedora’s one, I remember seeing numbers like 4800. So much for “too small” repositories.
As for the stuff breakage, I never had any with Debian. I had some with Gentoo but nothing that I couldn’t fix. All major changes in a package (like some path changes) were mentionned after recompiling the package.
While I agree that many people are bashing RPM senselessly, fighting FUD is FUD is not productive.
“i liked debs more than rpms, but i like freebsd’s ports than all of them… and i dont think they are all the same thing (i probably mis understood your posT)”
i believe you did. I was just pointing out that its stupid to say something like I hate all “rpm” based distros.
fedora uses yum and up2date to manage repositories. up2date can use its own/yum/apt repos and almost every “rpm” based distro has been using a automatic dependency resolver for quite sometime.
there isnt really a different end user experience here. of course individual opinions or technical differences still exist as always but the irrational hate against *all* rpm based distros(they can be of very different form from each) is really really pointless
”
Don’t bother telling them RPM is not the same thing as apt-get they know it, everyone knows it. They just refuse to aknowledge it cause it has been the only advantage they’ve had ever and want to pretend its still only a gentoo/debian thing.”
might be true but its good to point that out to people new to these concepts. all these silly ads for using other distros are annoying and here is why
Debian is a community managed distro which has very different goals from that of fedora. they arent easily interchanged. for example the release management structure(time based vs ad hoc), updates policy (close to upstream vs backported bug and security fixes) and so on
it is well known that fedora tends to attract more newbies than gentoo. gentoo is anything but user friendly (not specifically a problem as it was designed for power users) and so on..
”
There are 8200 packages in Gentoo’s main repository and about 15000 in Debian’s testing one. While I did not found stats on Fedora’s one, I remember seeing numbers like 4800. So much for “too small” repositories. ”
those numbers are misleading as it does that not take into account various third party repos which are being integrated as fedora “extras” now…
“While I agree that many people are bashing RPM senselessly, fighting FUD is FUD is not productive.”
calling everything you dont agree with or understand completely as “FUD” is heavily overloading that word
Don’t bother telling them RPM is not the same thing as apt-get they know it, everyone knows it. They just refuse to aknowledge it cause it has been the only advantage they’ve had ever and want to pretend its still only a gentoo/debian thing.
The fact that dpkg/.deb/apt-get (there, I’ve mentioned all parts of the technology that make it possible, so you can’t complain about “rpm based vs. apt-get” shorthand) can upgrade a system reliably with a simple “apt-get dist-upgrade” while apt-get or yum when paired with rpm cannot is a fact.
You are missing out on upgradability if you use Fedora. Fedora has newer packages and interesting new technology. It however does not upgrade as smoothly as Debian; this is a fact, not propaganda. As for Gentoo, Red Hat has no equivalent – its source based, similar to the *BSD port system. Because of that system it’s very upgradable and can easily run on the bleeding edge; the only problem is that it loses some in the way of integration.
Fedora has some advantages and is an OK distro, but each distro has their advantages and disadvantages. It’s zealotry to assume that all distros are alike and share the same advantages and shortcomings without checking it out yourself.
———
Fedora has some advantages and is an OK distro, but each distro has their advantages and disadvantages. It’s zealotry to assume that all distros are alike and share the same advantages and shortcomings without checking it out yourself.
———
Yes, of course. You are right. What annoys the hell out of me is when someone writes an article like this one to tell the world “It’s a Linux problem”. No, it’s your distribution’s problem. Change to another or bear with it.
”
You are missing out on upgradability if you use Fedora”
not true. several people have reported 100 % success with upgrading previous versions of rhl/fedora
” It however does not upgrade as smoothly as Debian; this is a fact, not propaganda. ‘
you experience however is not necessarily universal. I have had trouble with upgrading debian before. basically upgrading a existing version of software tends to be more problematic than a clean install. this is not confined to fedora..
bleeding edge doesnt necessarily have to sacrifice upgradability. in fedora however its probably not a huge problem since its meant for people who can deal with breakages like that (probably)
if you understand computers to a decent extent, you will also understand how difficultit is to make your “upgrader” intelligent enough to understand what a user intended for his/her system after the base was installed.
with this in mind, i don’t trust any upgrader. i always recommend fresh installs. the extra effort in keeping copies of your additional software and data is not much more than thatinvolved in your backup regime.
Dude hello its FC2 the thing was designed for a good upgrade.
Upgrades in Linux are not so painful as say: upgrading from windows 2000 server to windows 2003 server.
APT has made the process really easy (I recently told a guy to go from a custom-based debian distro – Guadalinex – to debian sarge and the process was smooth with more 200 packages upgraded, don’t listen to those who say that emerge works and apt/yum doesn’t…)
Binary distros, by the way, has not “disadvantage” in running “bleeding edge” software…I mean, binary packages have to be compiled from a source, which means there _is_ a infrastructure to compile things in package systems like RPM or DPKG which can be used – and it is used, it’s just that “binary packages” people seems to be less masochist – to run bleeding edge software.
“While I did not found stats on Fedora’s one, I remember seeing numbers like 4800. So much for “too small” repositories.”
Um, actually, I did a wc -l on the FC2 package list (from the official Fedora site, it’s posted here: http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/fc2/ . If that’s wrong for some reason, let me know, but if it’s right there’s a little under 1,000 packages there.
”
Um, actually, I did a wc -l on the FC2 package list (from the official Fedora site, it’s posted here: http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/fc2/ . If that’s wrong for some reason, let me know, but if it’s right there’s a little under 1,000 packages there.
”
thats misleading because fc3 has more packages added. anyway the exact number of packages might depend on how modular it is. for example debian splits up every kde program into seperate packages which isnt what other distros usually do. Moreoever that completely ignores all the other third party repos including dag’s freshrpms etc which has around 4000+ unique packages if i remember correctly
APT isn’t the only advantage of Debian, another one is that it doesn’t touch /usr/local, exactly as the author of the article suggests.
“Move to FreeBSD!”
ok following the ubuntu lead, here comes the freebsd trolls
only with fedora you must to burn a new cd for a proper upgrade with debian/ubunto a simply apt-get dist-upgrade will suffix
I use Slackware and compile most of the programs I use. I keep the tar file of the source around for programs I really like or hard to find programs so that if an upgrade breaks it, I can just recompile it. I install most things I use in either /usr/local or my home directory, so in a sense, I guess I’m my own best package manager. Not to mention Slackware upgrades are really nice and haven’t broken anything to my knowledge. Viva la Slackware!
ps. Yes, this is a rather useless post.
I was a long time debian user. If you used unstable or testing then you get a lot of breakage during upgrades. Sure there was ways to fix it but who wants to bother. Debian is a great distro but it isn’t perfect like some people want to make it sound.
Er, well, the whole point of this *article* is that using such third-party repositories messes up Fedora updates, no?
“Er, well, the whole point of this *article* is that using such third-party repositories messes up Fedora updates, no?”
no. it does not. freshrpms,dag etc have for a rpmforge repo which is completely compatible and does not mess with anything usually. if you find bugs file them
My 2cents…
For myself I use Fedora Core 2, and with the following yum.conf file, I can get pretty much anything I want.
My consulting practice concentrates on eliminating Microsoft systems out of my customers enterprise, so most of the packages I need to do this are systems based, not really too cutting edge.
(kismet, bind, ntop, quagga, samba…etc)
Although one of my customers I did manage to setup them up pretty nice with a game machine….bflag…etc…also, rpms.
I haven’t found a problem getting things I need from Third Party Fedora RPM sites, so far.
I use to manage a source/make/cvs on most of my systems using /usr/local as root, then later on in combination with rpm. So I would use both at the same time, and they would coexist fairly nicely.
Now, I am almost always managing a package of some sort, and very seldom do I need to resort to /usr/local anymore, for manually doing the ./configure –prefix /usr/local;make install sorta thing.
Of course with the possible exception of building custom kernels for my customers with high capacity/network needs. (tc, bgpd, ospf, ingres/egress and of course iptables). I then usually build specialized kernels for those kinds of systems. My ORACLE customers almost always have to have specialized kernel builds as well.
But, in any case I find it is possible to manage a ports like BSD facility with RPM, simply be resorting to installs and dependancy management via Fedora source rpms.
And, I do that in cases where it makes sense. (i.e. postgres i386 binary packages are not effective enough for my logistics industry customers who need the postgres binaries compiled with Xeon instruction set.)
I achieve this sort of specialization between source/portage binary enhancements along side rpm binaries who do not require it, with complete dependancy rules satisfied.
But with this really comes down to with respect to upgrades is more of a function of what the system does, than what package management or lack of one, has as to offer.
For my proprietary binary systems, such as ORACLE upgrades are usually not possible. It isn’t do to a lack of package mangement ability on RPM/APT-GET…whatever, but mainly because the vendor cannot keep up with the Open Source Community so upgrades are a non issue. What is an issue is security updates, and those usually can be applied.
(i.e. possible exception are the libc updates, which broke Oracle 9i R2 for example with ORACLE’s linker due to symbol table deletions…)
For Desktops things move a little faster, unlike the proprietary servers/vendors products who cannot accomodate the upgrades due to lack of recompilable source code, desktops are a different application area.
Users expect and want the latest desktop updates from KDE/GNOME, as soon as possible.
I am no different, and I run into many problems due to the fact that it can be quite complex if I want the latest greatest on my laptop, and still be able to haul my work around with me to be productive. (i.e. I work almost 7 days a week…due to the fact my hobby and professional life are one in the same. 🙂
Trying to update to KDE 3.3 while insuring the libcs for Oracle 9i and the basic GNU utils still allow Oracle to work for example is quite….a challenge if I only want to use packages.
Then you get into the black art of upgrading and modifying the packages RPM/APT-GET default install locations so you can modify the launch/search symbol locations for libs the application needs…such as ORACLE via the LD_LIBRARY search path. This theoretically allows one run different aged applications with several different libc/library requirements. Not as bad a dll hell in windows, but it does and can destroy your systems ability to update via any package technology cleanly.
I have noticed, that if you modify the install paths, legally by issuing a RPM command to a binary package, some of them will not install correctly, regardless.
This is a packaging problem though, not a inherrent flaw in APT-GET or RPM. The packager should provide scripts to modify/recompile binaries should the installer request a different install location the author did not think of.
Which I think, after reading many of the comments of the people here, I find almost always the comments are fundamentally…
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PACKAGER DIDN’T DO THIER HOMEWORK and not due to an inherent flaw in the package technology. (i.e. RPM or APT-GET.)
-gc
PS: Oh, almost forgot my yum.conf….put it in your /etc/ directory and you should get access to just about anything you need. Some of these locations are rpm non signed. So, if you are into signed rpms, you may not like them. 🙂 Happy Holidays
[main]
cachedir=/var/cache/yum
debuglevel=2
logfile=/var/log/yum.log
pkgpolicy=newest
distroverpkg=fedora-release
tolerant=1
exactarch=1
[core]
name=Fedora Linux $releasever – $basearch – core
baseurl=http://mirror.hiwaay.net/redhat/fedora/linux/core/2/i386/os/
gpgcheck=1
[hiwaaypdates]
name=Hiwaay FC@ Updates
baseurl=http://mirror.hiwaay.net/redhat/fedora/linux/core/updates/2/i386/
gpgcheck=0
[dupdates]
name=Duke University Updates
baseurl=http://ftp.dulug.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/2/i386/
gpgcheck=0
[koextras]
name=Kernel.org Extras
baseurl=http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora.us/fedora/fedora/2/i386/RPMS.stabl…
gpgcheck=0
[UCS]
name=University Southern California RPM Repository
baseurl=http://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/linux/fedora/fedora/fedora/2/i386/RPMS.s…
gpgcheck=0
[livina]
name=Livina RPM Repository
baseurl=http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/2/i386/yum/stable/
gpgcheck=0
[dag]
name=Dag RPM Repository for Fedora Core
baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/fedora/$releasever/en/$basearch/dag
gpgcheck=0
[dries]
name=Dries RPM Repository
baseurl=http://dries.studentenweb.org/apt/fedora/fc2/i386/dries/
gpgcheck=0
#[newrpms]
#name=NewRPMS for FC2
#baseurl=http://newrpms.sunsite.dk/apt/redhat/en/i386/fc2/
#gpgcheck=0
[kde-redhat-kde-stable]
name=kde-redhat.org (kde-stable)
baseurl=http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/$releasever/stable
[kde-redhat-kde-stable-all]
name=kde-redhat.org (kde-stable-all)
baseurl=http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/stable
[tupdates]
name=Fedora Linux $releasever – $basearch – testing updates
baseurl=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/$releasever/$basearch/tupdate…
[tupdates]
name=Fedora Linux $releasever – $basearch – testing updates
baseurl=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/$releasever/$basearch/tupdate…
First of all, let’s get the terminology straight. An upgrade means telling my installed OS “upgrade installed packages up to their latest versions” (either using a CD or an online repository). Wiping your harddrive and installing the next distro release does not qualify as upgrade, it’s just a clean install.
The best (and normal, to me) way to use a distro is to do a clean install once and upgrade it afterwards. Think how Debian or Gentoo do it, as a continuous update process, nothing as brutal as a clean reinstall. Distro releases are just landmarks and reasons for maintainers to put out a fresh set of ISOs or CDs, not excuses for you to destroy your entire installation and start fresh.
Doing upgrades the way they’re meant to be done will preserve all your preferences and setups. Actually, it’s the applications’ job to preserve compatibility between subsequent versions, not the distro’s. The distro’s job, via the package manager, is to take care of /etc, and any package manager worth its salt has ways to deal with that so as nothing is broken.
This whole talk about FHS and packaging practice is void since the whole concept of distro upgrades seems to be evading the author. I haven’t used Fedora but I refuse to believe it doesn’t offer you the means for incremental upgrades. The old Red Hat distro’s did.
I remember I installed RH 6.2 only once and then upgraded my way to 9.0 without ever the need for a reinstall. As long as the dependency system is well built so as not to leave you with an unstable package combination, all will be well.
i’m doing *daily* updates via the development channel with yum for fedora
and i just love it 🙂
cheers
rsl
hose numbers are misleading as it does that not take into account various third party repos which are being integrated as fedora “extras” now…
Are they supported by Fedora? If they aren’t, don’t even bother to argue.
calling everything you dont agree with or understand completely as “FUD” is heavily overloading that word
Then prove me that Debian/Gentoo breaks all the time. Go ahead, smartass.
I can’t wait for people to use autopackager to end this package-duplicating madness. What a complete waste of time in light of better solutions.
1.0 coming to a theatre near you soon!
I always wonder why so many people feel the need to update to the latest distros/apps. If you have a running system and it works the way you want, why change it? The basic stuff (writing some letters, surfing the web) can easily done with an “old” distro. But it seems that most users are “hot-distro” addicted.
upgrading/updating is only useful if there are serious bugs or some added options for your os/apps that you REALLY need. Everything else is more or less wasted time imho.
Just my two cents
At least get the name right. It’s “autopackage” (http://www.autopackage.org/).
Are they supported by Fedora? If they aren’t, don’t even bother to argue.
—-
what exactly do you mean by “supported by fedora”
fedora is not supported by redhat and the repositories are managed by those providing them. if you mean can I file bugs?. then sure…
“Then prove me that Debian/Gentoo breaks all the time. Go ahead, smartass. ”
dont ask me to prove what I didnt claim smartass
I don’t have any problems with fedora. It’s the only distro I’ve used where I can get everything I need to work right. I honestly have used about 40 or so distros.From ripping cd’s in MP3 format with sound juicer. To all the browser plugins to play WMA’s. I use apt-get for additional software and yum for security patches and updates. Fedora just works me. I usuall back up all my data then do a clean install of the new distro.
From Fedora Core to 1 to 3 I’ve had no problems.
shh, if all you have to offer is a typo correction might as well set keyboard input to /dev/null!
Let me get this straight, your saying debian breaks alot and are pointing towards testing/unstable as proof of that?
Excuse me while I laugh smugly for a while….
Testing is exactly what it says, testing.
Unstable is exactly what it says, unstable.
Debian stable is pretty solid, I’ve used it for a year with zero problems (not that that says much, many folks tell me they have zero problems with windows o_0).
Though, I’ve been using debian testing for the last few weeks, and it lives up to its name, there are a few bugs (nothing major though), but then again, if there werent then why would it need testing?
When folk are comparing the number of bugs/glitches etc.. one comes across, please at least compare stable versions of the respective distro’s.
As for apt vs the likes of urpmi etc…I favour apt, mostly on account of how its the most mature of the lot.
”
Debian stable is pretty solid, I’ve used it for a year with zero problems (not that that says much, many folks tell me they have zero problems with windows o_0).
Though, I’ve been using debian testing for the last few weeks, and it lives up to its name, there are a few bugs (nothing major though), but then again, if there werent then why would it need testing?
”
you know why its pretty solid. because it has dead completely outdated software while debian developers ponder about whether to do a release or let ubuntu guys manage it for them and become a base for many distros instead of just being another distro. how is that?
Do your own package management
Rely on a distro no more
fedora is not supported by redhat and the repositories are managed by those providing them. if you mean can I file bugs?. then sure…
Can you file bugs to Fedora on 3rd-parties repositories? If you can’t, then I consider them as unsupported. I am aware the 3rd-parties are probably doing their support but we are no longer talking of the official repositories…
dont ask me to prove what I didnt claim smartass
Well, I said it’s unnecessary to spread FUD on THAT. Whatever.
“As for apt vs the likes of urpmi etc…I favour apt, mostly on account of how its the most mature of the lot.”
ROFL, nice job picking the one criterion it will *always* win on. I’m sure it makes evaluations nice and easy.
I have a household of basically Debian based machines. They operate primarily as desktops. Since Linux slowly supplanted Windows, Samba remains the way they talk to each other, with one machine doing most of the “server” functions. KDE served as the desktop, starting with 3.0. Kernels began with 2.4.19 and have moved up from there.
Why Debian? I have one “adventurous” machine. It uses Debian’s Testing as a base, but uses Unstable’s version of KDE (now 3.3.1), OpenOffice (1.3) and the Mozilla products. Though rather “bleeding edge,” it remains stable. The others stay a little more closely with Debian testing.
I stopped using pure Unstable when a LIBC6 update broke compatibility with Win4Lin. Both the LIBC6 and Win4Lin maintainers fixed the problems independently in about a week. Debian Testing never had the problem. Indeed, in over two years of use, I have had one update go wrong in Testing: GNUCash. It was fixed in two days, but I fixed it in one day by grabbing the package from Unstable.
That’s it in over two years of upgrades. I have upgraded several desktop environments, repeatedly. Major programs are always getting updated. Underlying libraries and compilers are constantly being updated. The system not only still works, but overall system speed and responsiveness has improved as a result. As a Debian user, I look forward to upgrades.
Sorry but I have been using Linux since 1996 and what I see here is just a bunch of young kids mouthing off without any real true knowledge & experience on lunix (or unix in general) and making statements based choices simply because they use a particular distro.
I *was* a fan of redhat until they changed their direction and introduced Fedora Core. Fedora Core is nothing but bloat ware, slow and a complete mess in terms of its file structure. The truth of the matter is that other distro’s such as Gentoo have taken Linux that extra step and produced a distribution which Fedora Core should have been. Gentoo is fast even on a i386 because you are able to compile the main core system to your computers architecture. Fedora Core and many other distro’s do not allow this. Gentoo’s portage system is by far the most advanced and well maintaned package management system to date. Don’t believe me? perhaps you should try it out then. Gentoo isn’t the easiest distro to install but heck its well worth the time & effort. Upgrading the system is also such a breeze from there on end.
Those of you who talk so highly about Fedora Core need to try other distro’s such as Debian, slackware or Gentoo so that you can make a fair and truthfull judgement instead of talking up Fedora Core so much. Those who write up articles on this site about Fedora Core should also get out and learn a little more (take a hint bitterman) instead of talking rubbish.
I know of quite a few people that deployed a servicerelease on their XP installation (SP2) and were NOT happy about the result: messed up computers, etc. Some even had to do a brand new install. I mean … SP2, that’s like updating your OS and not even upgrading. If even that doesn’t work …
You won’t help many newbies nor other Linux users with this Gentoo ads on this topic (mostly Fedora). This is an act of disrepect that even some Gentoo users will point out your attempts.
Those of you who talk so highly about Fedora Core need to try other distro’s such as Debian, slackware or Gentoo so that you can make a fair and truthfull judgement instead of talking up Fedora Core so much. Those who write up articles on this site about Fedora Core should also get out and learn a little more (take a hint bitterman) instead of talking rubbish.
Then why don’t you submit article or your review about Gentoo instead of whining on this topic? That way you can spend your time praising why your Gentoo is great.
Pfft…
emerge world
C’est finis!
I must admit I like the MS Windows upgrades. They worked for me.
When upgrading Linux, I just re-install everything. It’s the surest way to get a decent system. Installing Slackware is fast and easy, and I compile some packages I need after installation.
Oh please…. Direspectful to Gentoo users?… Somehow I very much doubt it. You are a class example of someone I was talking about.
As for writing reviews, I have no intention or the inclination to do so. There are plenty of articles on Gentoo you can read about so go search the net. If YOU want to write one then go ahead and do so but as I said, make sure your not talking rubbish. From what I have read by some people on this site thats clearly what is happening because the editor is in most cases is biased towards a particular distro. Now you tell me if that is good for the newbies or linux community or not??…
And why do so many people love Gentoo? For the same reason so many people love sticking wings and go-faster stripes on their cars.
Yes, folks…Gentoo is for ricers!
http://funroll-loops.org/
sorry, couldn’t resist.
1:source based distros are for advanced and wise people
2:rpm based distros are for lasy asses and beginners
3:windoze is for dumb asses
Another useless discussion of Distro-fanboys. Some people need to grow up and learn some constructive criticism.
hehe, yep
Getting 2 linux dev to agree on something is pretty hard, but getting 2 linux user agree on a distro is something else lol. As for myself I’m a distro whore
I have FC3, libranet, archlinux and freebsd 5.3 installed. In the end all distro are the same.
It’s the time it takes to start working (for real) that differs.
I am not upgrading either, but that’s mostly because the module for my raid controller is broken in precompilied kernels. (like the installer!)
I personally use gentoo. Why? Well I could list all of the usual reasons, but in the end there is only one reason which really counts. It works for me. That and paired with the fact that gentoo is the first distro that managed to convert me 100% to linux.
Now I’m not gonna say, if you have a problem with distro X, you NEED to convert to gentoo. Gentoo is certainly not the be-all and end-all of all distros. It has its disadvantages and its advantages. But the point is, its all about choice. So if your really SO unhappy with your distro, try something else. In the end, what does it matter which distro you use, as long as it works for you, linux is still linux.
Do you represent all Gentoo users? Read carefully:
This is an act of disrepect that even some Gentoo users will point out your attempts.
In this case, it is clear you are not one of them.
As for writing reviews, I have no intention or the inclination to do so. There are plenty of articles on Gentoo you can read about so go search the net.[/]
Then explain this reason to promote Gentoo on whatever Linux distros topic like this Anonymous (IP: —.adl2.internode.on.net) – Posted on 2004-12-20 09:09:52 post.
[i]If YOU want to write one then go ahead and do so but as I said, make sure your not talking rubbish.
Fedora review? Sure. I almost complete the evaluation so I will start to write.
From what I have read by some people on this site thats clearly what is happening because the editor is in most cases is biased towards a particular distro. Now you tell me if that is good for the newbies or linux community or not??…
You missed the point. I pointed out what posters obviously noticed, an attempt to promote X distro on Y distro topic, nothing more. That won’t help much to convince newbies or Linux community to try that X distro.
I forgot to close the tags.
One thing I haven’t seen people mention is that most distributions act like Fedora in terms of package locations. None follow his recommendations of having third-party or non-standard packages install in /usr/local and /opt. Most distributions suggest packages installed within the packaging system go in /usr. Fedora has more third-party repositories than Debian and Gentoo, but I don’t think this makes a difference.
/usr/local is reserved for locally built and installed packages. If you build from source, it should go here.
/opt is reserved for large software. Most of them just come from binary tarballs or custom installers. I have seen a few that use RPMs but they tend to be cross-distribution installs.
A good example is firefox. If you download the source and build it, it should go in /usr/local. If you download the prebuilt tarball, the best place to put it is /opt/firefox. When third-party repos were distributing it as RPMs, they installed it in /usr. Now that it is in FC3 (the reason I upgraded), it is in /usr.
It’s not really a distro decision, it’s a packager decision. When you build an RPM you decide where it installs to. It would be nice if distros published guidelines suggesting to install to /opt, though.
no. it does not. freshrpms,dag etc have for a rpmforge repo which is completely compatible and does not mess with anything usually. if you find bugs file the
True. For the first time, I have not encountered a conflict with livna package when installing from either dag or freshrpms. Now if only livna allow the latter to access to their source code…