[huskerlug] Re: The Debian Leap
- From: James Worrest <jworrest@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:50:42 -0600
The Knoppix 3.2 apparently won't be on the mirrors until March
19th when the German computer show CEBIT 2003 is over. Knoppix 3.1
has some fun things, but it still doesn't work with as many
computers as SuSE 7.3, and this is several years old. ---Jim
On Friday 14 March 2003 06:51, you wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 10:33 pm, you wrote:
> > Same here, I just installed knoppix on my machine this week
> > and I just =
>
> love
>
> > it. I don't think that I will ever go back to Red Hat or
> > Mandrake and I used to be a big fan of Mandrake. I just love
> > to be able to install and update package with the apt-get.
>
> Which version? I looked for 3.2 and haven't seen it yet.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:36 PM
> > To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [huskerlug] The Debain Leap
> >
> >
> >
> > =09I started looking into Debian this week as a replacement
> > for some OpenBSD
> > bridging firewalls. Nothing against OpenBSD, but I want
> > something that doesn't have a support "life cycle" of only 1
> > year. And, since the pat=
>
> ch
>
> > at
> >
> > bridge.sourceforge.net has been out and in use for awhile now,
> > I though=
>
> t
>
> > I'd
> >
> > give Linux a try for the bridging firewall.
> > =09I have experimented with Debian a little bit in the
> > pre-woody days (3 or so
> > months before it came out). I did like apt and dpkg, but was
> > disappoin=
>
> ted
>
> > that it didn't support package signing, or some form of
> > package verification
> >
> > (other than a simple md5 checksum).=09Now I see support is
> > there for signing
> > packages in woody, but it isn't being used yet. I hope this
> > changes in=
>
> the
>
> > near future, because I think it's quite important for
> > verifying package integrity & authenticity.
> > =09However, after using apt-get, dpkg, and apt-cache, I can't
> > help but come away
> > with a feeling of how superior it is to rpm + RHN. Right now,
> > the only benefits that RHN has over apt + dpkg (that I can
> > see) is package signa=
>
> ture
>
> > verification and a management interface that allows you to
> > manage a lar=
>
> ge
>
> > number of machines. However, I almost always update machines
> > by hand, because I lock them down in a way that scheduled
> > updates from RHN would fail
> >
> > without manual intervention. So, this feature doesn't really
> > appeal to =
>
> me
>
> > that much. RHN also uses SSL, but if package sigs were used,
> > this coul=
>
> d
>
> > just
> > as easily be used to make sure that the package wasn't
> > tampered with in transit. I think the benefits of dpkg + apt
> > over rpm + RHN are probabl=
>
> y
>
> > too
> >
> > numerous to mention.
> >
> > I'll mention a few of the things I found that I like about
> > dpkg + apt:
> >
> > =09I like that you can remove all of a package except it's
> > configuration files
> > in case you decide to re-install it. Although I probably
> > wouldn't use =
>
> this
>
> > feature very often myself, I can see situations where it might
> > be usefu=
>
> l.
>
> > =09I also like that you can have a package marked for removal
> > so that as soon as
> > another package is installed that can fill it's "function",
> > you can hav=
>
> e
>
> > these "pending" packages automatically removed. For example,
> > I tried t=
>
> o
>
> > remove exim before installing qmail, and it wouldn't let me
> > since exim provides the "mta" (or whatever it is) function.
> > =09I also like being able to search a list of available
> > packages with apt-cache.
> > Although RH has a database of RPMs you can install, it seems
> > to remain fairly
> > static. And, as I understand it, you could also add
> > repositories of De=
>
> bian
>
> > packages to your apt sources that aren't officially part of
> > Debian and =
>
> have
>
> > those packages be included in your search once you do an
> > "apt-cache upd=
>
> ate"
>
> > (this would be true for other apt-* functions too).
> > =09apt-get upgrade (need I say more?). Although RHN does have
> > an up2date option
> > that performs the same function, it won't upgrade a system
> > from one rel=
>
> ease
>
> > to the next. Although I don't think it's officially supported
> > using "apt-get
> > upgrade", I've read about several people doing it successfully
> > in the p=
>
> ast.
>
> > =09The package configuration features provided by dpkg are
> > pretty nice too. For
> > example, after installing OpenSSH, it asked me several
> > questions about configuration and even talked about the new
> > privilege separation featur=
>
> e.
>
> > =09Outside of dpkg+apt, my experience has been pretty good.
> > Debian is definitely different, but that doesn't make it bad.
> > I just need to get used
> >
> > to it's layout/setup. Probably the one gripe that I have is
> > that "start-stop-daemon" is just too damn long to type! :-)
> > (No flames ple=
>
> ase,
>
> > that was just a poor attempt at humor).
> >
> > =09I understand the concept of stable/testing/unstable, and
> > that if you want the
> > latest and greatest version of a package you usually have to
> > go beyond stable. The only thing that bothers me about this
> > is that when I tried Debian previously, it seems that you run
> > the risk of not having very ti=
>
> mely
>
> > security updates with testing/unstable packages. I know that
> > only "sta=
>
> ble"
>
> > is officially supported according to the FAQ, so the typical
> > response w=
>
> ould
>
> > probably be along the lines of "stick with stable". However,
> > I can see where
> > packages from testing/unstable could be required to fulfill a
> > need. At least
> > there is always the option to patch the package by hand since
> > its open source.
> >
> > =09Overall, I think Debian would make a top notch choice for a
> > server. For a
> > desktop where I want the latest KDE and multi-media programs,
> > I think I=
>
> 'll
>
> > stick with Gentoo.
>
> --=20
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts: