Debian User Forums

ravisista wrote:So what do you think about Fedora 14?

Wow. There's a thread on this forum about another GNU/Linux operating system and its name is not Ubuntu

Has this forum matured? Or is this thread the exception that proves the rule?
.

Soul Singin' wrote:

ravisista wrote:So what do you think about Fedora 14?

Wow. There's a thread on this forum about another GNU/Linux operating system and its name is not Ubuntu

Has this forum matured? Or is this thread the exception that proves the rule?
.

Or maybe it's that Fedora changed something more obvious, and not its scheduler, boot order or whatnot?

Hi.

I track the popular distributions, installed in a "virtual machine server" using VMWare on top of (currently) Debian 5.

I used the PreUpgrade method to upgrade from 13 to 14: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading . It took a long time, but seems to have been successful: I haven't had it running long enough to see if there are any problems, but I used yum to update it after it came up, and I have re-booted a few times. I ran a few quick confidence tests on gcc and gfortran; they were correct.

All in all, OK except for the time required ... cheers, drl

Fedora is a resource hog.
You can build it like debian but it isn't as easy.
After FC5, I ditched it for the most part.
Now, it's for a quick install or because of networking or other hardware.

Soul Singin' wrote:Wow. There's a thread on this forum about another GNU/Linux operating system and its name is not Ubuntu
Has this forum matured? Or is this thread the exception that proves the rule?
.

.......
I think I'm getting a headache (again) from the circular logic...
Only this time it's not my own "logic?" causing the discomfort...
I'm rootin an tootin for the fedora thread......
But I seriously doubt anyone gives an iota what I think..... Do they......
Is anyone else getting dizzy?

The last time I used Fedora was FC5 as well, it was a nice enough distro but I prefer debian's package management, so don't see any real incentive to switch. It's apples and oranges.

sossego wrote: You can build it like debian but it isn't as easy.

That's one of the many beautiful things about debian. There just isn't an install and setup like it, in my opinion. It's just perfect with apt. Arch comes close but makes it a bit of a headache when installing software. I can't be arsed to mess around with rc.conf and whatnot when installing cups, gdm or whatever else needs a deamon. apt does all the hard work for you.
I do like fedora and it has quite a nice community but there is always a deal breaker, be it font rendering, bugs, selinux etc....

beavenburt wrote:

sossego wrote: You can build it like debian but it isn't as easy.

That's one of the many beautiful things about debian. There just isn't an install and setup like it, in my opinion. It's just perfect with apt. Arch comes close but makes it a bit of a headache when installing software. I can't be arsed to mess around with rc.conf and whatnot when installing cups, gdm or whatever else needs a deamon. apt does all the hard work for you.
I do like fedora and it has quite a nice community but there is always a deal breaker, be it font rendering, bugs, selinux etc....

Exactly what i would like to be able to say... but am getting lost in translation.

All that " la la la... all in one file... la la la " completely misses that in general one is fine with the default values.
(i am not sure if i did ever edit such a file in Debian, not so sure where they are to be found at all).
If i gotta do it usually it is
a) removing or adding a # or
b) changing "yes" to "no" or vice versa)

But i just started reading bout the inner workings, and i might be wrong in what the etc/conf.rc-people are speaking about at all (they are very fond of it ). Just another linux user.

I'm not quite sure where the fondness comes from either.
For example
debian - apt-get ot aptitude install gdm - simple
Arch - pacman -Sy gdm = simple. But then open rc.conf, navigate to daemons section and add @gdm making sure you add it after all other deamons. Still simple but shouldn't be required and does it really offer any perfromance gains? Plus it means you have to read a wiki for everything you install to make sure you edit the correct files or to get it working properly.

Sorry for going off topic admin.

They would probably argue that it is not sane to add a service _before_ it is configured.
(that the point of a package manager is to add/remove packages, but not to start them, configure them... like that)
So:
install it
configure it
add it to /etc/rc.conf (that is the only file i know of, not sure...).

In Debian:
install it and done
if not done check the configuration files.
( The gurus say: la la la... not configured....serious security problems... la la la)

For me Debian is the perfect mix of being easy but not being a nanny
(for example Ubuntu and Fedora are more like a nanny, and one which decides what i have to want)
Being able to learn stuff at my speed.

Plus it means you have to read a wiki for everything you install to make sure you edit the correct files or to get it working properly.

Exactly.

nadir wrote:
For me Debian is the perfect mix of being easy but not being a nanny

Couldn't of put it better myself. Although I respect and appreciate what other distros do, fedora being one of them, debian is the sweet spot for me. It strikes the right balance of stabilty and configurabilty without being overly simple or complicated.

Shall we get a room?

I think we got a room, but sometimes my ability to speak English tricks me.
The room is: server oftc the room is #forums-debian
Usually dead as a door-mouse, but now and then a bit of "nonsense", aka chat. (and a bit of "learning Bash" on a regulary basis, saturday, sometimes sunday too. Much fun with that).
For sure we are looking for people to help us with learning Bash.

While it seems redundant that you have to add e.g. gdm to /etc/rc.conf in Arch, it is a lot easier
if you have to quickly switch between gdm, kdm, slim, lxdm for testing purposes (I needed that
recently when making my theme).
Also, rc.conf has the advantage of having almost everything start up and system related in 1 file.
That's also a plus if you want to set up Plymouth. It's a bit quicker than the approach Debian has.
But that's of no relevance to someone who likes the default settings, so either way works fine.
Every approach has its pros and cons I guess.

/etc/init.d/gdm stop
/etc/init.d/kdm start

No?
If no i would probably do:
dpkg-reconfigure gdm
or try
update-alternatives.
But i don't use login-managers at all. Why do i know that at all?

-----------
It would be of help if you would post your /etc/rc.conf. So we know what we are speaking about.
This one:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rc.conf
<skip some foul language about being useless >
and my FreeBSD one is a mess (so the arch one is still a lot better). I could probably hunt the web and copy and paste a proper one, but that would not be very comfortable (nor secure) anymore. "You need a config? Hunt the web and copy/paste". Great.)
Do one thing. Do it right. Say: /etc/network/interfaces.

My cli-training-box, no X, no nothing:

# -- sysinstall generated deltas -- # Sun Aug 8 04:45:36 2010
# Created: Sun Aug 8 04:45:36 2010
# Enable network daemons for user convenience.
# Please make all changes to this file, not to /etc/defaults/rc.conf.
# This file now contains just the overrides from /etc/defaults/rc.conf.
font8x14="cp437-8x14"
font8x16="cp437-8x16"
font8x8="cp437-8x8"
hostname="freebsd-laptop.resident-evil.com"
inetd_enable="YES"
keymap="german.iso"
sshd_enable="YES"
ifconfig_re0="DHCP"

Now add hal and that, add the modules for VBox, and you got what i call a mess.

Ehm, sorry, I was vague. I meant that changing the DM to see what it will look like when you restart is easier. For me at least it's easier to edit rc.conf than wait for the dpkg-reconfigure script. It's a subjective thing. Also, my rc.conf is not a mess. I find it looks very neat, especially when loading modules. That array thing looks cool. As I said, it's subjective.
It's kinda cool.

canci wrote: Also, my rc.conf is not a mess.

Post it. I ain't got no idea what the people are talking about.

The DM looks different if you restart/reboot then if you simply start it?

nadir wrote: The DM looks different if you restart/reboot then if you simply start it?

Haha, I'm a bit anal about what "feeling" the theme gives me when the computer starts
and how things "blend". LOL, I know.

Also, my rc.conf looks the same as any vanilla one, except for the actual variables which are changed. And we're off topic.

Also, rc.conf has the advantage of having almost everything start up and system related in 1 file

Also, my rc.conf looks the same as any vanilla one, except for the actual variables which are changed.

So if you would ever want to edit something it would be all in one file?
Aha.
No, not really. I don't get it.
All that you don't edit is in one file?
What is the advantage?

What was about plymouth? Didn't you say it was easy to set it up on Arch?
But you don't do it. But if you would, then...

Again the advantage of "but it is all in one file" sounds like speculation.

You my friend have serious problems with semantics. I never said I don't edit rc.conf, just that it has the same structure, besides of course my variable that change from time to time. It therefore does not look diff from the standard one you get when installing.

PM me if this really is a burden understanding, I also speak German. But we're really really off-topic.

Also, my rc.conf looks the same as any vanilla one, except for the actual variables which are changed.

Dosna seem hard to understand, my friend.
What makes it worse:

But that's of no relevance to someone who likes the default settings,

A real example what a real user does on a regular basis would probably help more of us to understand what the advantage is (one which is worth to mention it at all).

You can offer one, yes or no? The code from the conf.rc and the Debian way of doing that.