Brent, > > I have had to downgrade a good number of RedHat servers or hold them > > back because of RedHat's rather broken RPM dependency issues. > > Same here, up until 18 months ago where I took a decision to stick with > one distro with a reasonable packaging system, namely RH. Fair enough. > RedHat Network seems well suited. It is...and it's not altogether different from what the Debian security folks attempt to achieve. > Yep, installing individual RPMS for upgrades can be a bastard, but why > bother when RH do all that via RHN? Vendor lock in. > You see, laziness is a virtue. I could choose to run each patch > individually and suffer the consequences of a never ending dependency > loop, but why bother when it's all there and done for a paultry yearly > cost? See above. > 4)Have not a productive bone in their bodies and spend their time smoking > up the room to hide their own inadequate approach to their job. LOL > > "That the Debian packaging system--with its configuration tools, > > priority levels and in-built dependency handling--coupled with a tightly > > controlled, peer reviewed, open source repository is flawed and likely > > to increase a system administrator's workload." > > Now, go prove it... > > You see,this is where I reckon the FOSS paradigm works so well. > I don't have to prove anything, it's the demand on a particular package > which matters most. IMHO , low demand for a FOSS product equates to there > not being a need for it, or that there is a fundamental flaw in it's > approach. The latter often addressed by a code fork if the "demand" is > there. True but that has nothing to do with my null hypothesis. > It's not what I or anyone else does (or postulates...;-) that matters, > more so, it's the general acceptance of what is being done with it that > matters most in terms of one distros acceptance over another. That may be true but again it's not addressing the hypothesis I have put forward. > To that end, a convergence of distros would be disasterous, and would slow > down development by moving away from plural views. The trick ,is it not, > is to establish differing points of view through which the best solution > is found. There HAS to be choice, wide sets of choices, otherwise the FOSS > development model would fail. A difficult trick indeed. > The thing that irks me the most about such comments as this CQU admins, is > that it slates this "choice" as being a downside, rather than a postive > and enlightening feature. It's a contrary thought in direct oppostion to > the culture that existed in CQU right up until I finished in 2000... I am > ashamed of my Alumni...:-( But it is to a certain extent a downside. What if you don't want to think about choices...isn't that why you install RedHat? DSL -- Microbits Linux Technician +61 8 8362 9220
Attachment:
pgp00013.pgp
Description: PGP signature