--------------526AFC641793545460A88C96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Berikut beberapa 'rangkuman' antara RedHat & Slackware:
-- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim <ibrahim@ui.ac.id>--------------526AFC641793545460A88C96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="tmptmp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tmptmp"
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system Subject: Slackware VS RedHat Date: Sep 1996
1. bji@connectinc.com (Bryan Ischo)
I'd have to say that Red Hat is "better" overall but I still prefer Slackware.
Red Hat is better because it's about as upgradeable as possible. I installed a Red Hat with a 1.2 series kernel and then later wanted to upgrade to the kernel 2.0 series. Red Hat had already packaged up all of the various libraries/utilities that need to be upgraded along with 2.0 and I was amazed at how easy it was to do my system upgrades - it amounted to finding an ftp mirror of the Red Hat stuff and issuing a few simple commands to fetch the appropriate packages and install them. Trivial. Of course, I have net access, and if you don't, you'd have to wait for the next Red Hat disc to come out and then *buy* it in order to upgrade. Still very easy.
However, I prefer Slackware because I do upgrades so infrequently that the other issues I have with Red Hat push me towards favoring Slackware. What problems do I have with Red Hat? Simple. It looks too much like Solaris. The very worst thing about Solaris (aside from its terrible bloat, inefficiency, etc - something not present in Red Hat) is its awful confusing "system" setup. What I'm getting at is the /etc directory. Slackware has a very clean and simple system setup, such that an average Unix developer like me can actually understand most everything that's going on with the system. The /etc/rc.d directory contains only a few simple scripts that do everything that's needed and nothing that's not. Red Hat, on the other hand, has a zillion files in /etc, most of which are probably not needed by the average system, along with a very Solarish-ish collection of rc.* directories containing tons of bizarrely-named rc scripts that are far more complicated than necessary. End result: without a significant amount of effort, I will never be able to have a good idea of exactly how my system is configured and what I need to do to make changes. It's simply too complex for my puny brain. But Slackware, ah Slackware ... easy as pie. Maybe it's just me, but I really like having a very good handle on what's going on in my system.
Which is why I prefer Slackware, even though I acknowledge that Red Hat in general has superior features.
Bryan
2. roman@news.spt.cz (Roman Majer)
I know Slackware and I know RedHat. If you want to setup your Unix box in your own taste, get Slackware. If you want to just sit at your line and wait for new rpm, get RedHat. And don't forget, RedHat is commercional, so you spend a lot of time to get the notes "RedHat Commercional" notes off your system. RedHat says they spend a lot of time to try all of packages work togather, but my experiences says, thats not true. Slackware has no upgrading system, but you can get all programs wih Makefile, which will take care about that, and you will know, whats going on. RedHat is doing good work with trying uniform your Linux box but I dont't like the way they choose.
So my advice, you can get Slackware, and you can get RedHat. There is only the way, how you want work with your unix box. I dont't wanna say: RedHat is better or Slackware is better. That's not the point. I like the slackware, others do RedHat. Try both and you'll see.
Have a good time, Roman.
BTW: This message was written on Slackware Linux Box, and this box is 130 days up. :-)))
--------------526AFC641793545460A88C96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="tmptmp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tmptmp"
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system Subject: Slackware VS RedHat Date: Sep 1996
1. bji@connectinc.com (Bryan Ischo)
I'd have to say that Red Hat is "better" overall but I still prefer Slackware.
Red Hat is better because it's about as upgradeable as possible. I installed a Red Hat with a 1.2 series kernel and then later wanted to upgrade to the kernel 2.0 series. Red Hat had already packaged up all of the various libraries/utilities that need to be upgraded along with 2.0 and I was amazed at how easy it was to do my system upgrades - it amounted to finding an ftp mirror of the Red Hat stuff and issuing a few simple commands to fetch the appropriate packages and install them. Trivial. Of course, I have net access, and if you don't, you'd have to wait for the next Red Hat disc to come out and then *buy* it in order to upgrade. Still very easy.
However, I prefer Slackware because I do upgrades so infrequently that the other issues I have with Red Hat push me towards favoring Slackware. What problems do I have with Red Hat? Simple. It looks too much like Solaris. The very worst thing about Solaris (aside from its terrible bloat, inefficiency, etc - something not present in Red Hat) is its awful confusing "system" setup. What I'm getting at is the /etc directory. Slackware has a very clean and simple system setup, such that an average Unix developer like me can actually understand most everything that's going on with the system. The /etc/rc.d directory contains only a few simple scripts that do everything that's needed and nothing that's not. Red Hat, on the other hand, has a zillion files in /etc, most of which are probably not needed by the average system, along with a very Solarish-ish collection of rc.* directories containing tons of bizarrely-named rc scripts that are far more complicated than necessary. End result: without a significant amount of effort, I will never be able to have a good idea of exactly how my system is configured and what I need to do to make changes. It's simply too complex for my puny brain. But Slackware, ah Slackware ... easy as pie. Maybe it's just me, but I really like having a very good handle on what's going on in my system.
Which is why I prefer Slackware, even though I acknowledge that Red Hat in general has superior features.
Bryan
2. roman@news.spt.cz (Roman Majer)
I know Slackware and I know RedHat. If you want to setup your Unix box in your own taste, get Slackware. If you want to just sit at your line and wait for new rpm, get RedHat. And don't forget, RedHat is commercional, so you spend a lot of time to get the notes "RedHat Commercional" notes off your system. RedHat says they spend a lot of time to try all of packages work togather, but my experiences says, thats not true. Slackware has no upgrading system, but you can get all programs wih Makefile, which will take care about that, and you will know, whats going on. RedHat is doing good work with trying uniform your Linux box but I dont't like the way they choose.
So my advice, you can get Slackware, and you can get RedHat. There is only the way, how you want work with your unix box. I dont't wanna say: RedHat is better or Slackware is better. That's not the point. I like the slackware, others do RedHat. Try both and you'll see.
Have a good time, Roman.
BTW: This message was written on Slackware Linux Box, and this box is 130 days up. :-)))
--------------526AFC641793545460A88C96--
-- STOP-LANGGANAN: 'unsubscribe' ke: linux-request@indovax.csc.ui.ac.id START-LANGGANAN: 'subscribe' ke: linux-request@indovax.csc.ui.ac.id