Re: Next distro after Mandrake
From: Andy Fraser (andyfraser31_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:43:52 +0100
Cyber Trekker uttered the immortal words:
>> ....Apt-get, while very good, isn't perfect despite what Debian users
>> would lead you to believe. I'm just as happy (happier, really) with
>> urpmi and checkinstall.
> I wholeheartedly concur with your sentiments. There is no system, no
> matter what anyone says and whatever position thay hold in the Linux
> community, that is not perfect. Sometimes, IMHO, many amongst the Debian
> users walk in a dream-like state of denial and absolute perfection where
> such doesn't exist. This is for many reasons not good to see and is only
Is this just a general rant against Debian users or directed more
specifically at me?
Assuming the latter let me just say that I've tried many distros and found
Debian the most suitable for me. Each to their own. It's a free world and
we can use, and rave about for that matter, whichever distro we happen to
I don't have any illusions about Debian being perfect. Far from it. It's
just that Debian sits nicely between Slackware's total user control and
Mandrake's package management. There are other reasons but I don't want to
bore everyone with them.
> ATM I'm using Mandrake 9.1, although I've used other distros in the past,
> and use Mandrake's URPMI. I find URPMI good. Naturally, it isn't perfect,
> but neither is apt-get. Each system has its good and bad points. RPMs
> aren't entirely bad. There can be ways to overcome problems and URPMI is
> one such method.
I didn't say apt-get was perfect, I just prefer it to urpmi. I had a few
problems around a year ago because some packages I wanted to install came
from Texstar and these caused problems with some official Mandrake
packages. I had the same problems with Debian using the offical KDE apt
source until this was added to the unstable tree. Now I can get everything
I need directly from an official Debian source. Not using any unofficial
sources has made my Debian installs easier to upgrade.
> When all is said and done, I think much more realism is needed by certain
> users. Also, fanaticism, even in the computer world, is nothing but
> destructive and ends up holding development back for as long as such an
> attitude is held to.
Would you care to elaborate on your statement?
> After all, Linux is Linux. Factional point scoring is immature and leads
> to others laughing at those indulged in such a behaviour. There's nothing
> in the history and concept of Linux that states that it should be only
> this way and no other way. Users adopting different distros have made
> their distro this way or that way. It is not an absolute truth of Linux.
I agree with that. There's room out there for all the major distros. IMO
they all fulfil different roles. Having the choice means we can choose
which distro suits us best and avoids the "one OS fits all" failings of
Windows. Which brings me nicely round to one of my first statements