[geeks] RedHat restructure

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:29:50PM -0600, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> 
> > This isn't Slackware's fault: new libraries and dependencies have been
> > growing like mad for the last couple of years.  User's demand that
> > stuff, and so it went in.
> 
> Funny how OpenBSD and NetBSD can fit several architectures' installers
> on a single CD, with source.  

That doesn't refute what I said at all.

NetBSD just moves the bloat to CDs other than the install CD, and
reduces the choices during the base install.

> But that boils down to the issue of "What is $OS" and "What is the
> software the maintainers support on $OS".

Well, by this logic, NetBSD is far more piggy, since it has many CDs of
software that the project maintains, versus just a single source CD for
Slackware.

And round and round it goes...

I do like the idea of a base install like NetBSD has, and think it
should be added to all Linux distributions, but few seem to care about
that.

And of course, Slackware does nothing to prevent you from duplicating
the BSD style base install. 

I don't know if current Debian and RedDrakeSuseHat have the ability
to do that or not.

Most Red Hat servers I see are crammed full of useless crap and
dependency hell.  I can't believe people trust them...

> > BSD did this years ago.  Everything in NetBSD is broken out now, and
> > it is easier to take care of.
> 
> Yes, but:
> 
> 1) In BSD, you have a -separate- file for each network interface, not
>    one file with an arbitrary number of predefined slots for interface
>    data.
> 2) The BSDs do it consistently.  Slackware only does it in a few spots.

Agreed.  I thought the complaint was about the very nature of breaking
out the configuration, not the implementation.

I want them to change this, and I think they will since 9.1 is getting
some bitchback.

> > I do not like the complicated SysV /etc crap in RedDrakeSuseHat and
> > Debian.
> 
> I like SysV-style init scripts better from a management point of view,

I think NetBSD has done it far better.  Do you really find SysV better
than NetBSD, and the new FreeBSD stuff (which is based on NetBSD)?

To me, they seem to do the same thing, but BSD is much cleaner.

> but they do tend to be an ugly mess.  I absolutely -HATE- the way
> DeadRat does network interface configuration.  How many different
> files do you have to touch to move a machine from one network to
> another?

I still have the scars...

> When you install OpenBSD or NetBSD, you get:
>   * A Kernel
>   * Userland tools
>   * (optional) Development tools
>   * (optional) man pages
>   * (optional) X
>   * (optional) BSD-games.

Understood, but I can do that with Slackware too. 

In fact, you can always create your own boot CD that is limited just
like the NetBSD one.  Some shops do this anyway, to create quickie
server and workstation install CDs.

One thing that sucks is neither Slackware nor NetBSD can have custom
install sets that span CDs, unless something changed recently I missed.

> That's IT.  If you want more, you can fetch it through pkgsrc/ports or
> download a package.  They "support it", as in, they have made it work on
> the OS, and they're actively maintaining the patches that make it work.
> However, it does not pork up the installation CD.

True, but for most workstation installs, you need the other CDs anyway,
and it would actually be nice to have a *BSD workstation install CD that
had almost everything the typical install needs.

> I have seven computing architectures in my house that I actually
> use.  Three (PowerMac, RS/6000, and SGI) of those architectures will
> never run BSD in my house, but the rest either run BSD or the vendor's
> OS.  Having one CD versus 15 or so is important to me because I can't
> always netboot.

The only reason I don't run NetBSD everywhere, is lack of good support.
Linux just has far better support, especially for things I want on
a desktop system.  The packages always seem to be better integrated
and tuned as well.

This is just due to popularity and the sheer number of people working on
it of course.

I started out on BSD UNIX, but it currently isn't the ideal workstation
UNIX for a PC machine.

> > My primary complaint about Slackware is the build system.  It really
> > needs something better.

> I haven't built Slackware from source since 4.0 or so, back when it was
> x86-only and I offered (and was turned down by Patrick) to lead the port
> to SPARC.

He's funny about things.


-- 
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza____________________s h a n n o n at wido !SPAM maker.com