[plug] did anyone manage to record the channel 10 linux article?

[Gavin Tweedie]

I think everybody should take note of the way this email was writen. He
managed to get his point across without abusing other distributions etc...
I myself am a redhat user, When I read an email like this I will happily
accept his opinion, but when I read postings from people who
obviously have no clue and just abuse the distribution without pointing
out what _exactly_ is good or bad about it, I really dont give much
consideration to what they are saying.
Hell all the distros use linux, most have mainly if not all GNU software,
so redhat has things in a different directory to debian etc..so what?

Gavin


On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Christian wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Rob Hall wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > ObRedhatVsDebian: Debian by miles! :).
> > >
> > 
> > You all keep saying how good Debian is, but don't tell us what is good about
> > it!  Someone please tell me WHY debian is better.
> 
> Well, I've used both and from my own experiences Red Hat was very, very
> flaky.  It actually crashed on me several times - more in one week of use
> than my previous Slackware system had in over a year.  However this was
> Red Hat 5.0 which most people will tell you wasn't exactly entirely stable
> and for which there have been numerous updates.  And I guess that's
> probably one of the biggest differences - Debian's developers take A LOT
> of time testing and debugging their distribution while Red Hat's, being
> commercial, are more tied to deadlines and release dates - of course there
> are advantages to both methods however, from my own experience, this makes
> Debian a lot more stable. (if sometimes delayed!)
> 
> Another difference is the number of security updates and errata.  There
> are many, many more for Red Hat than there are for Debian.  I believe Red
> Hat did a lot of really DUMB things in 5.1 (mostly fixed in 5.2), mainly
> to do with linuxconf, whereas a lot of time and effort is spent on
> *designing* Debian to reduce and minimise potential risks.  If you're
> running Red Hat on a workstation these aren't as important but a lot of
> people aren't. 
> 
> Debian also has a slightly better package management system I believe
> although the differences are not huge (see
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp.html for a comparison).  Probably the
> biggest difference, so I've heard, is that the Debian developers make
> better use of the various opportunities to script the installation -
> possibly another example of why Debian is a better designed distribution
> with more effort put into it.
> 
> I'm not a passionate Red Hater - unlike some I think Red Hat is probably
> easier to install than Debian for a near-complete beginner although, for
> someone with some experience, the differences are probably negligible. 
> I'll often recommend Red Hat to a newbie who's going to install it on
> his/her home computer but, for anyone who's prepared to take a little
> extra time to read the manual (sadly, few people), Debian is the better
> designed distribution in my opinion. 
> 
> This email was not designed as an attack on Red Hat (which is one company
> I quite like and a distribution I certainly respect) but is simply a
> description of my experiences (and things I've heard oft repeated)
> regarding the two distribution.  It's not intended as flame bait so please
> don't bother flaming me.
> 
> Christian.
> 
> ============================================================================
>   Microsoft Windows NT: Providing 386 emulation for your Pentium hardware.
>