[plug] Controversial comparison of distros?

[Rob Davies]

and the winner is LINUX!!!!!!

Rob Davies
rob at rjdarts.com

"To converse is one scenario that separates us, from the Apes."

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, James Devenish wrote:

> In message <1067326517.3f9e1c3540b5e at webmailtest.iinet.net.au>
> on Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 03:35:17PM +0800, sscott at iinet.net.au wrote:
> > Quoting Cameron Patrick <cameron at patrick.wattle.id.au>:
> > > You're implying that there is a clear-cut distinction between core and
> > > non-core ("3rd party") applications and that this distinction is in some
> > > way meaningful in this debate.
> >
> > yes, I am :)
>
> Winner: sscott
>
> > > Exactly.  And as such, they make different packaging decisions based on
> > > the appropriateness for a particular target audience or purpose.
> >
> > My point is that the choice of packaging would not materially affect this and
>
> Winner: cameron
>
> > > Ahem.  Stop it with the stereotypes, please.  Irrelevent ad hominem
> > > attacks are not appreciated.
> >
> > Point being (for the humour impaired), each distribution has a target audience.
> > Id say they were pretty clearly defined.
>
> Winner: sscott
>
> > > | If they all use RPM, would it really matter? If they all had a similar if
> > > not
> > > | identical directory structure, would it really matter?
> > >
> > > Possibly, although some alterations/improvements to RPM may be
> > > necessary.
> >
> > The rpm format is not set in stone. Fix it.
>
> Winner: N/A
>
> > > | RH could continue tuning their distro for Oracle, Mandrake could
> > > | continue packaging unstable X apps which give everyone the shits,
> > > | Debian could continue with their marvellous tradition of testing
> > > | everything for 14 years and having ultra-perfect dependency trees, and
> > > | slackware could continue to be ignored by anyone except those people
> > > | who really should be running one of the BSDs.
> > > [...]
>
> Winner: sscott
>
> > > | 3rd party software (including open and proprietary) would have an easier
> > > time
> > > | packaging and distributing their software. General end users wouldnt have
> > > to
> > > | worry about which distro they were running.
> > >
> > > Surely the above two paragraph are contradictory?  If distros are
> > > different in some way then end users /will/ have to worry what
> > > distribution they're using, and people distributing software in binary
> > > form /will/ have to care about the differences between distributions.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> Winner: cameron
>
> > > One could argue that Debian requires deb packages instead of rpm
> > > packages for the same reason that Red Hat requires rpm packages instead
> > > of self-installing exe files.  Sure, the differences between Debian and
> > > Red Hat may be lesser in magnitude than those between Red Hat and
> > > Windows, but the principle of different operating systems generally
> > > requiring different versions of software packages remains sound.
> >
> > Youve lost me here, Im not too bright today. Can you elaborate?
>
> Winner: cameron
>
> > > Finding something that works (or is "good enough") is easy.  But if
> > > there are other things that work /better/ for a certain purpose, should
> > > we not be working to popularise them rather than marginalise them as
> > > "unpopular", and/or denigrate their users as "comp sci students with too
> > > much time"?  (Me, I'm a maths student with too much time! :-P)
> >
> > My point is that there are better things to worry about (ie, your maths
> > degree!) than the fact that debs have pre-unpack triggers and rpm doesnt when
> > rpm seems to work just fine regardless.
>
> Winner: unknown
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> plug mailing list
> plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
_______________________________________________
plug mailing list
plug at plug.linux.org.au
http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug