[NTLUG:Discuss] RedHat 6.1 (+ dists in general)

[Kevin Brannen]

Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 
> So on to the next part of this post -- there are a lot of Linux distros out
> there, and more are appearing all the time.  But all the new ones seem to
> be going after the luser^H^H^H^H^Hnewbie market.  Are there *any* distros
> that focus on 1) doing things "the right way"[1], 2) staying almost
> bleeding-edge current[2], and 3) being as secure as possible[3]?  Using or
> allowing RPM would be a plus, as I much prefer it to other package
> management systems I've seen (I use src.rpms to compile my own copies of
> most everything, and Debian's system of rebuilding source packages wasn't
> something that I liked).
> 
> Anyone know of anything that fits these criteria?  Debian strives for (1),
> but is way behind on (2) -- they still have no publically released 2.2
> kernel or glibc2.1 based release, which wouldn't be SO bad if they'd
> release slink-appropriate upgrades for such basic packages as XFree, etc.
> Rule by large committee seems to be slowing them way down.  SuSE in my
> experience falls behind in regards to (1) quite a bit.  ...
> 
> Footnotes:
> [1] - Obeying any relevant accepted RFCs/etc., as well as the general
> design principles that made Un*x what it is.  See the development model
> followed by the mutt-dev crowd.
> 
> [2] - If a new Mutt or Screen or VIM version is released, I'd like the dist
> to release a native-package format for that version within the week,
> including versions for the last /several/ major releases of the dist.
> RedHat does this with stuff like X, and I appreciate it (4.x, 5.x, and 6.x
> versions are available), but not with other stuff that's still pretty basic
> for most users.
> 
> [3] - Native packages for ssh/pgp/gpg/Mutt-i/etc.

I switched to SuSE about a year or so ago and have been quite pleased. 
They seem to follow most of the standards that I'm aware of (probably
not that many :-) so I'd really like to know examples of where they
don't so I can be more informed/educated.  They do reasonablly well for
staying up to date; though I can see I need to write them again about
sending an out of date latex2html package.  And they do have a
easy/secure option for security at configure time; which Saint seemed
reasonably happy with on the "secure" setting.  And it does have RPMs.

I'm not trying to say that SuSE is the perfect distro.  As I pointed
out, there is at least 1 package that they are "behind" on.  And there
are times I throughly detest the dependency checking they do, though I
know they are trying to do that for my own good (in my case they want to
insist that I install arena and lesstif, even though I've selected
netscape & know that I will install real Motif).  Fortunately, I can
force it not to install them.

There's a new 6.3 coming out in Nov I'm told, I'll see how they do
then.  One of the big attractions of SuSE for me is that they allow for
commercial software (unlike some distros who seem to equate that with
evil incarnate).  I like Open Source software as well as the next
guy/gal, but don't have any problem with people who want to sell
software, as long as it's reasonably priced (subjective I know. :-)  But
SuSE does put some "trial" versions of commercial and shareware products
on the CD, a few of which I use.  They also put StarOffice on the CD in
binary RPM format which makes it very easy to install and use.  The
performance, uh drags (to put it nicely), but it does allow me to read
all those M$Word97 docs I get from my client from time to time.

I hope this helps others thinking about distros, but I can certainly see
where the only way to "know" the "best" one (for you) is to install them
all...

I used to use Slackware exclusively, but haven't in a year or two.  I
liked it because it gave me more control, but also meant I had to know
more about what I was doing (not for the newbie).  I haven't used a
recent Slackware to know what they're like now.

Kevin