[plug] The same old argument RH vs. Whatever

[Peter Wright]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:08:09AM +0800, Simon Scott wrote:
> Quite simple really: Debian for servers, Mandrake (or maybe RH) for
> desktops.... Desktop is more a case of personal taste tho (I use
> Mandrake).  For servers, if you live in the real world, use Debian.

Actually - and please remember that the line between "server" and
"workstation" is not always (ever?) easy to draw - I'd think that for pure
servers the most important priorities are to keep a fairly pared-down
system (as you allude to below), running the minimal set of services that
you need, so you have less to keep track of (and watch for security updates
to)[0]. If you _do_ find you need to update one of your apps providing a
network service (eg. sendmail) - for whatever reason - you do it. Using
whatever package management system is appropriate.

Debian does make this sort of stuff easier, although if you're just
upgrading _one_ application, the difference between:

# apt-get update ; apt-get install sendmail

and 

# wget ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/linux/redhat/updates/.../sendmail_update.rpm
# rpm -Uhv sendmail_update.rpm

is pretty trivial, really. On a server the amount of package installation
or upgrading you do should be relatively small - only what is necessary.

On a workstation it's a different story, and this is where Debian really
shines. If you feel the need to keep upgraded with large or huge package
collections (with many complicated interdependencies) like Gnome or KDE,
Debian works very well, with something like:

# apt-get install task-kde

or 

# apt-get install task-gnome-desktop

Or if you frequently find yourself in the situation where you hear of an
interesting/unusual app and think "I'd like to try that out," Debian is
your friend as well. Especially if it has significant dependencies.

> If you have so much free time you dont know what to do with yourself, use
> Slackware.

Now I _know_ that the humour in that remark is not really accurate anymore,
being based on an older perception of Slackware - but dammit, it still
makes me grin. :-)

> The problem with other distros for servers (esp. RH) is that it installs
> too much by default, and most of it is activated.

Again, this may be a perception thing and not (completely) justified by
current reality.

> So you may install RH onto your server for the purpose of serving http,
> and before you know it you have sendmail and a whole heaps of other
> deamons listening on ports. A bunch of removes and playing with ipchains
> later and you have a servicable unit. 

I believe you generally have to put more effort into Redhat to trim it
down, yes.

> The other bad thing about RH is that it is what most people use (for
> whatever reason) and therefore I would imagine that 3I337 HaCXoRs would
> keep a keen eye on the RH errata list. So you gotta be pretty keen to
> keep it up to date.

On the other hand, if you _can_ secure a Redhat box, you know you should be
fine against most vandals, although you'll probably waste their valuable
time for a while :).

"Oh bugger, this is one of those RH boxes where the admins made an effort!"
"Wow, lucky hit. I got one of those a few months ago too. Oh well, next!"

> Debian is just "apt-get update;apt-get upgrade" and thats all she wrote.
> Put it in a cron script to run every week and you never need worry about
> it again.

Not... quite. You do need to make some decisions occasionally during
configuration of upgraded apps (depending on your autoconfiguration
settings).

> The bad things about Debian -
[ snip ]
> Dont use dselect tho, it blows.

Good point, mentioned before but worth repeating.


Pete.

[0] In which respect other OSs like the *BSDs, especially OpenBSD, can be
very very good.
-- 
http://cygnus.uwa.edu.au/~pete/

--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
106. When told to "go to your room" you inform your parents that you
     can't...because you were kicked out and banned.