Re: Moving from Redhat to Debian
From: Johan Kullstam (kullstj-nn_at_comcast.net)
Date: 10/17/03
- Next message: Dave Brown: "Re: Cron and Root"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: chicken and egg"
- In reply to: Dave: "Moving from Redhat to Debian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 17 Oct 2003 11:23:38 -0400
"Dave" <shuvit@127.0.0.1> writes:
> After a year with Redhat, I'm considering moving to Debian. I'm doing some
> research this time, so a year from now I don't feel like I've made a
> mistake. The summary below is what I've learned from reading the newsgroups
> searching with terms like 'redhat vs debian'. Comments are welcome,
> especially experiences as a user.
I moved to debian from redhat a little over a year ago. I used redhat
versions 4.1 through 7.3 but i didn't really like the direction they
were going with the gnome desktop in 8.0 and later. I figured I'd
check and see what another distribution had to offer.
> Major advantages of Debian:
>
> 1) Upgrades easier more reliable. APT package manager best in the
> industry.
Yes, apt is very nice. However, the there are a number of package
tools with somewhat overlapping functionality -- dpkg, apt-get,
aptitude/dselect. Man pages are you friend but It takes a little time
to get used to what can do what with the functionality scattered
around a bit.
> 2) Choice of stable, testing, latest releases. Easy upgrades of any or all
> packages.
I have run all three. I would choose stable if you hardware is old
for it to support it properly. Otherwise, I would choose
sid/unstable. Stable, is well, stable and things work and you get
security updates. Unstable is where a lot of newer stuff comes out,
sometimes a thing will break, but usually an update comes out within a
day or so.
Testing is a newer in-between thing which picks up packages which have
aged enough in unstable to vet their most glaring bugs.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as I'd hoped. The problem is
that testing bugs can be longstanding as new updates don't come in
until dependencies clear. Unstable bugs aren't really much more
frequent in my experience and they get fixed quickly.
Your mileage may vary, see what you like. Be aware it is easy to
dist-upgrade to a newer package set, i.e., from stable to testing to
unstable but difficult to go in reverse order.
> 3) Very active and enthusiastic community for support.
>
> 4) Candor and Transparency. Bug system is open. You can even get ratings
> on how well each package maintainer has handled bugs in the past. This is
> where the lack of commercial constraints is most apparent.
>
> Major advantages of Redhat:
>
> 1) More likely to find a new package as an rpm than a deb. (e.g. latest
> release of Python). But I see Debian's repository is bigger. I'm
> confused.
Yes. A big weakness of debian is that if you have new hardware, there
might not be a debian package for you. For example, if your video
card needs XFree86 4.3 (because it is recent), then you can be out of
luck with debian since they only offer 4.2. (Yes, I know you can
compile XFree86 yourself, and I know about the experimental packages.
But it's still a pain.) Stable has an even more ancient 4.1. This is
a major reason for people not being able to use debian stable.
> 2) Redhat systems more commonly seen in corporate settings, and other
> places you might find yourself working.
Redhat offers support. Debian does too. Redhat will do both
hand-holding and bug fixing in exchange for a fee. It is easier to
contract with one entity like redhat than a potential legion of debian
developers.
> 3) Redhat is the standard "platform" that major applications like Oracle
> are ported to. Use another platform, and you might have trouble getting
> application support.
True. And redhat is a fine linux distribution. People use it because
of a lot of reasons.
> Questions:
>
> 1) What are the differences I'll need to learn in moving from Redhat to
> Debian? Filesystem, procedures, etc.
You have to survive the installation. You will want to know what
hardware you have and what some of the major kernel modules you need
are called.
> 2) How much effort in setting up peripherals, network services, etc.? I've
> heard that Libranet helps with this setup. What about Progeny? Any
> experiences?
I found that debian network setup was easier than redhats. Printers
are similar, you can use redhat's printtool in debian too.
> 3) Any likely disappointments - things that I will discover *after*
> making a big effort to move.
Check that your video card works with Xfree86 4.2 or 4.1 depending on
if you want to go unstable or stable.
> 4) Can rpm packages be converted to deb packages? I've heard 'alien' can
> convert deb's to rpm's, but is not reliable. Going the other way should be
> easier, since the rpm features are fewer than deb package features.
Yes, but I haven't done much of the that.
> 5) Will package management ever be as easy as Windows? The XP System
> Restore utility is a life saver.
Backup your /home, /etc and /usr/local. I like to have a seperate
/home partition. That way you can tar up /etc and /usr/local, store
them in somewhere under /home and proceed to blow away your system.
In addition to swap, you probably want more than two partitions, but i
consider / + /home + <swap> to be the minimum number of linux
partitions.
Don't worry about debian maintained packages. To make a list of your
packages, use
dpkg --get-selections > file
After restore or to setup a new machine with the same stuff
dpkg --set-selections < file
apt-get update && apt-get -u upgrade
Package management sucks under windows AFAICT but I haven't used XP.
You have to go uninstall, then install fresh. Sometimes you can lose
config information, sometimes you are updating a screen driver and
your screen goes to crap in the gap between uninstall and install.
In short, Windows is such a lose.
> Thoughts:
>
> Redhat seems to be putting all its effort on *enterprise* systems, where
> setups are done by certified professionals. This makes it rough on small
> offices and individuals.
>
> I understand their strategy of concentrating on the enterprise
> accounts. I just wish they would make it more clear, and not raise
> expectations among smaller users like me.
>
> Can Redhat be making any money on individuals and small office users? I
> know they've lost on sales to me. I've purchased three releases from them
> ( 7.3, 8.0, and 9 ), and each time I've had to call tech support, sometimes
> multiple calls. One call wipes out their profit on that sale.
You can use newsgroups and mailing lists for both redhat and debian.
And with debian, you don't have anyplace to call. If making tech
support calls is important, you may want to stick with redhat.
> I think Redhat may be engaging in wishful thinking. Just make a "one-size
> fits all" distribution (RH9), add patches as necessary, but don't increase
> costs by assigning a new revision number, and use the support hotline as a
> "training ground" for new employees that might eventually be good enough for
> enterprise support.
>
> -- Dave
>
>
-- Johan KULLSTAM <kullstj-nn@comcast.net> sysengr
- Next message: Dave Brown: "Re: Cron and Root"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: chicken and egg"
- In reply to: Dave: "Moving from Redhat to Debian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
