[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ossig] Enterprise Linux: UserLinux, Debian
Looking back, I think we miss a few thing
Major RH-based distro
1) Mandrake 5.2 was originally a red hat clone,
2) Connectiva, was also based on Redhat
3) Redflag Linux
4) Er what was Sun's original linux distro? The one based on RH 7.3
5) TurboLinux ( not sure but I think it was in some degree based on
1) Java Desktop
6) Linux media box
7) Ion Linux
8) Storm Linux (dead now)
1) Can't think of one now but I am sure you guys can at least fill me
in on one
1) Darl McBride "Just Sue It" 1.0
If you think about it, there are also quite a few project based on RH
in the earlier day. Just fewer today. Maybe due to the way RH does
things and the way they tried to be different. ( KDE that looks like
GNOME, aggressive kernel patching). Also, one funny thing about RH is a
lot of driver really doesn't work properly right out of the box like
Furthermore there's really not much people need to do to use RH/FC as a
base, except to produce some sort of "FC Lite."
On Aug 19, 2004, at 8:02 PM, Mukhsein Johari wrote:
> I didn't mean for this to get into a FC/Debian
> yum/apt-get religious debate - but of course, I
> shoulda known, huh? :-P
> --- Uwe Dippel <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Knoppix/Gnoppix, UserLinux). That is, instead of
>>> others like Fedora or Slackware or Gentoo. Anyone
>>> thoughts / experiences as to why this might be?
>>> it's more than simply "apt-get" and .debs?
>> Interesting. Could we not make out, that there *are*
>> reasons, then ?
>> Reasons to not use Slackware, Gentoo or Fedora ?
>> Try and ask them, and apt will be a good reason;
>> including lots of ports
>> (packages). Others ? I'd be curious. I doubt
>> religious motives.
> I dunno, apt-get is just a package manager, really.
> There are numerous others which could do the same job.
>> (This isn't supposed to be religious neither; only
>> my two sen trying to
>> answer your question.)
> Thanks but it's not really what I had in mind. :-)
>>> I just find it weird that a distro whose "stable"
>>> release is consistently about 2-3 years old
>>> could be so popular.
>> What is weird in it ? Some shops want 'stable' with
>> security backports
>> (a branch of a local bank runs basically on Woody);
>> no breakage allowed
>> in 24/7.
> Right. That is understandable. But I already know that
> What I was asking is why is it popular for those
> *interesting* projects like knoppix? Is the design of
> debian different, somehow? Is it nice/easy to maintain
> and administer?
> Bruce Perens also chose Debian for UserLinux (although
> that might have some 'sentimental' reasons) but
> consider also that Lindows and Lycoris are also based
> on Debian. The awesome skolelinux.org project is also
> based on debian. People just seem to *prefer* it for
> their respective purposes.
> What I'm getting at is, is the "way of debian" somehow
> extra conducive to distro specialization in some way?
> Is it really *that* flexible? What gives it this
> quality that other 'base' distros do not have?
> I've used Mandrake and Red Hat. Both are horrifying to
> customize. The config files are messy and all over the
> place, for example. Slackware (my favoured distro,
> currently) is extremely sane by comparison (a bit like
> FreeBSD). It's easy to configure stuff. Files are as
> you expect them and where you expect them. Slackware
> is the least surprising, IMHO, which makes my life
> But, again, apart from Slax (a liveCD distro) and
> Movix not many interesting specialized distros are
> based on Slackware.
> You might be asking why am I asking these questions?
> Well, if we know the answers, we'd be better able to
> recommend distros to fit either our own purposes or
> other people's (if they asked, say).
>> commodisation (does this word exist ?).
> Close, it's "commoditization". It seems to be used a
> lot in the press but it does not seem to be in the
> dictionary. Yet. :-)
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> To unsubscribe: send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message
To unsubscribe: send mail to email@example.com
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message