slackware vs redhat

slackware vs redhat

[Sunfire]

hi...
i was wondering... i was told by someone that didnt claim to know that much
about unix/linux that i "needed" to change my server over from redhat to
slackware... so instead of updating to redhat8.0 he wants me to update to
slackware 8.1.  he said to do that because of the reasons i will list..(not
all of them because it would be a very bad flame on redhat).
1. redhat is out of date
2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
4. redhat updates every few months or so......

i think i will end now after that it gets into too many flames if it hasn't
already...sorry if i posted stuff like that but i need to know somehow to
weigh this out..because i cant afford to "try it" on both systems to find
out for myself... it gets too expensive...

tnx

Re: slackware vs redhat

[shaun_oliver]

1. redhat is out of date
afaik, red hat ain't out of date, andthe only reason I can think of your
friend would tell you this is because of misinformation or the fact that
distributers choose their packages carefully. they use the packages they
consider to be stable enough for release in their distributions..

2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
that's just an outright crock. Red hat as far as I can tell, ain't any
slower than any other distribution. the version I used a year ago or
there abouts was slow on boot up mainly  because it had a lot to load at
startup. however, you can configure that to suit your needs.
so that point is a load of rubbish.

3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
Each distribution takes up as much disk space as you want it to.
the standard for slack 8.0 is around 2 GB if you choose a full install.
How much disk space GNU/Linux takes up is entirely up to you.

4. redhat updates every few months or so......
So what if it does, is this a problem?
all I can suggest is you use what you're comfortable with. if it's red
hat then use red hat if it's debian or slackware or something else, use
that one. Don't always trust what someone else tells you. use what you
feel the most comfortable using. and more importantly, check your facts.


-- 
Shaun Oliver


In a world without fences
          and walls who needs Windows and Gates?

EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Aaron Howell]

You are correct, your friend doesn't know very much about Unix/Linux.
RedHat 8.0 has some of the latest software, (gcc 3.2, glibc 2.3, apache 2.0, kernel 2.4.18 etc).
It now ships by default with speakup, so the old addage of slackware is better than redhat because it has speakup built in no longer applies.
as far as the statement about consuming more system resources, that's just plain garbage.
What system resources are consumed depend entirely upon what software you choose to run.
if you run lots of different software, then you will use more system resources than if you run a minimalistic system, (that is true of both RedHat and slackware).
Both Redhat and slackware are regularly updated, and erata packages are released for both if security problems etc are found in the current distribution.
That said, they are both excellent products, and the above is by no means an attack on slackware.
There is definitely a place for both distributions, but it would be fair to say that if you are confident with redHat and happy with what it gives you,
then you will not benefit by changing your system over to Slackware.
Regards
Aaron
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:58:26AM -0400, Sunfire wrote:
> hi...
> i was wondering... i was told by someone that didnt claim to know that much
> about unix/linux that i "needed" to change my server over from redhat to
> slackware... so instead of updating to redhat8.0 he wants me to update to
> slackware 8.1.  he said to do that because of the reasons i will list..(not
> all of them because it would be a very bad flame on redhat).
> 1. redhat is out of date
> 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
> 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
> 4. redhat updates every few months or so......
> 
> i think i will end now after that it gets into too many flames if it hasn't
> already...sorry if i posted stuff like that but i need to know somehow to
> weigh this out..because i cant afford to "try it" on both systems to find
> out for myself... it gets too expensive...
> 
> tnx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
     +----------------------------------------------------------+
    /             |\      _,,,---,,_                           /|
   /              /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_                      / |
  /              |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'                    /  |
 /             '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                         /   |
+----------------------------------------------------------+    |
| Aaron Howell                  Kitten Internet            |    |
| aaron@kitten.net.au           Internet consultancy,      |    |
| Phone: +61-417-625550         System administration,     |    |
| fax: +61-7-36010099           system design/integration. |    |
| icq: 6715521                  http://www.kitten.net.au   |    |
|                                                          |    |
|                                                          |    +
|                                                          |   /
|                                                          |  /
|                                                          | /
|                                                          |/
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Mitchell Smith]

Greetings,

I myself am a Debian user, however I have had the experience of using both
RedHat and Slackware, and these are my thoughts on the comments put forward.


> 1. redhat is out of date

Umm out of date?  As far as I am aware RedHat release more frequently than
Slackware, and there is always the up2date utility to make sure your RedHat
system is kept current with all the latest security fixes etc.

> 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%

This is highly dependant on what applications you have installed.  If you
installed the same packages on a Slackware system than you did on a RedHat
system they would run at exactly the same speed, short of a couple of kernel
patches that may vary speed *slightly* but not as much as 50%.

> 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.

Slackware's installation is slightly more text based than the RedHat
installer, however I personally found RedHat easyer to get up and running
quickly.

As for the comment on disk space, this once again depends on what you
install.  RedHat does install a number of packages that I personally feel
are not terribly necessary, however with RedHat's package management system
it is easy enough to remove unwanted packages.


> 4. redhat updates every few months or so......

Hahaha, I thought comment one said that RedHat is out of date *grins*.


What it basicly comes down to is preference, work in the environment in
which you feel most cumfortable.

If you are fairly new to Linux then it may be a good idea to go with the
same distribution that you have friends / coworkers to help you with.

If you have been using RedHat for a while and you find it does what you need
then I'd say, why change it.

I hope this has been helpful.

>From Mitchell

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Sunfire]

> 1. redhat is out of date
> afaik, red hat ain't out of date, andthe only reason I can think of your
friend would tell you this is because of misinformation or the fact that
> distributers choose their packages carefully. they use the packages they
consider to be stable enough for release in their distributions..
i grew up with redhat and am very loyal to it...not saying all others are
bad have no idea..just loyal to redhat.. been around since redhat 2.xxx or
something like that..not very big version number...
>
> 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
> that's just an outright crock. Red hat as far as I can tell, ain't any
slower than any other distribution. the version I used a year ago or there
abouts was slow on boot up mainly  because it had a lot to load at startup.
however, you can configure that to suit your needs. so that point is a load
of rubbish.
this is true... he also has to figure cpu and computer speed...any os be it
unix linux bsd os/2 windows or have it can only go as fast as the
computer...
>
> 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
> Each distribution takes up as much disk space as you want it to.
> the standard for slack 8.0 is around 2 GB if you choose a full install.
> How much disk space GNU/Linux takes up is entirely up to you.
hmm.. lets see from an average 3.x gigs of total distrib size i have about
2.6gigs of it actually installed (skipped x and stuff)...
>
> 4. redhat updates every few months or so......
> So what if it does, is this a problem?
> all I can suggest is you use what you're comfortable with. if it's red hat
then use red hat if it's debian or slackware or something else, use that
one. Don't always trust what someone else tells you. use what you feel the
most comfortable using. and more importantly, check your facts.
had my facts pretty straight...didnt know that i jumped out of linux world
for a while what was going on with that i have enough time to keep up with
redhat not all distribs...cant really afford that...just thought i would
ask...tell him to get it straight when i see him next...

>
>
> --
> Shaun Oliver
>
>
> In a world without fences
>           and walls who needs Windows and Gates?
>
> EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
> ICQ: 76958435
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Sunfire]

well... like i said in the last message about it...i cant really afford it
and i am not trying to say bad about any distrib..to be exact i havent even
read about slackware...all i know about it is its linux derived and has
existed forever to put it simple... its been around ever since i can
remember...
anyways heh all he said when he told me to switch was i didnt think he know
that much about unix and he said i dont just know enough to get around
(barely) oh...just to add since he said all of that other stuff he said "its
cooler lots of little system toys to play with"...at saying that he got his
account taken out (not taking a chance with a possible hacker) not to
mention he told me then that he was a hacker and i had to make sure all of
my system still existed...

hehe anyways...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Howell" <aaron@kitten.net.au>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: slackware vs redhat


> You are correct, your friend doesn't know very much about Unix/Linux.
> RedHat 8.0 has some of the latest software, (gcc 3.2, glibc 2.3, apache
2.0, kernel 2.4.18 etc).
> It now ships by default with speakup, so the old addage of slackware is
better than redhat because it has speakup built in no longer applies.
> as far as the statement about consuming more system resources, that's just
plain garbage.
> What system resources are consumed depend entirely upon what software you
choose to run.
> if you run lots of different software, then you will use more system
resources than if you run a minimalistic system, (that is true of both
RedHat and slackware).
> Both Redhat and slackware are regularly updated, and erata packages are
released for both if security problems etc are found in the current
distribution.
> That said, they are both excellent products, and the above is by no means
an attack on slackware.
> There is definitely a place for both distributions, but it would be fair
to say that if you are confident with redHat and happy with what it gives
you,
> then you will not benefit by changing your system over to Slackware.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:58:26AM -0400, Sunfire wrote:
> > hi...
> > i was wondering... i was told by someone that didnt claim to know that
much
> > about unix/linux that i "needed" to change my server over from redhat to
> > slackware... so instead of updating to redhat8.0 he wants me to update
to
> > slackware 8.1.  he said to do that because of the reasons i will
list..(not
> > all of them because it would be a very bad flame on redhat).
> > 1. redhat is out of date
> > 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
> > 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
> > 4. redhat updates every few months or so......
> >
> > i think i will end now after that it gets into too many flames if it
hasn't
> > already...sorry if i posted stuff like that but i need to know somehow
to
> > weigh this out..because i cant afford to "try it" on both systems to
find
> > out for myself... it gets too expensive...
> >
> > tnx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>      +----------------------------------------------------------+
>     /             |\      _,,,---,,_                           /|
>    /              /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_                      / |
>   /              |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'                    /  |
>  /             '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)                         /   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------+    |
> | Aaron Howell                  Kitten Internet            |    |
> | aaron@kitten.net.au           Internet consultancy,      |    |
> | Phone: +61-417-625550         System administration,     |    |
> | fax: +61-7-36010099           system design/integration. |    |
> | icq: 6715521                  http://www.kitten.net.au   |    |
> |                                                          |    |
> |                                                          |    +
> |                                                          |   /
> |                                                          |  /
> |                                                          | /
> |                                                          |/
> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Sunfire]

> Greetings,
>
> I myself am a Debian user, however I have had the experience of using both
> RedHat and Slackware, and these are my thoughts on the comments put
forward.
>
>
> > 1. redhat is out of date
>
> Umm out of date?  As far as I am aware RedHat release more frequently than
> Slackware, and there is always the up2date utility to make sure your
RedHat
> system is kept current with all the latest security fixes etc.
>
> > 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
>
> This is highly dependant on what applications you have installed.  If you
> installed the same packages on a Slackware system than you did on a RedHat
> system they would run at exactly the same speed, short of a couple of
kernel
> patches that may vary speed *slightly* but not as much as 50%.
>
> > 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
>
> Slackware's installation is slightly more text based than the RedHat
> installer, however I personally found RedHat easyer to get up and running
> quickly.
>
> As for the comment on disk space, this once again depends on what you
> install.  RedHat does install a number of packages that I personally feel
> are not terribly necessary, however with RedHat's package management
system
> it is easy enough to remove unwanted packages.
>
>
> > 4. redhat updates every few months or so......
>
> Hahaha, I thought comment one said that RedHat is out of date *grins*.
my thought exactly that didnt make much sense...i think what he ment to say
on the update a lot was if you put it in the context of number 1 saying they
are out of date and the last one saying since they are so out of date they
are playing flying pig and mooing sheep to get it to work and not be
behind...shrug
>
>
> What it basicly comes down to is preference, work in the environment in
> which you feel most cumfortable.
>
> If you are fairly new to Linux then it may be a good idea to go with the
> same distribution that you have friends / coworkers to help you with.
used or been around redhat for about 12 years now...

>
> If you have been using RedHat for a while and you find it does what you
need
> then I'd say, why change it.
dont know after 12 years?? that would not be very fun... maybe should ask
him that grin!!!
>
> I hope this has been helpful.
>
> From Mitchell
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: slackware vs redhat

[Steve Holmes]

You will probably get the most objective answers by reading the
messages that will be posted here from actual users of each product.
I should say complete, not object:).  After all, the user will
probably be biassed toward his/her favorite distro.

I cut my teeth on Slackware and still like it.  I like the nuts and
bolts approach to putting up applications and configuring things like
network interfaces and modems.  The packages are fairly simply
structured so one could even build their own slackware packages if
they wanted to.  I have found the various configuration files and logs
so I can configure whatever I need, right down to the bare metal.  If
I were to use one of those canned config scripts that often come with
distros, I might be limitted by that script's offerings and it will
overlay my customizations.

I hear that both Debian and Redhat offer more comprehensive package
updates online which Slackware currently does not.

I even considered switching over to Debian to give it a try but when I
couldn't get the boot disks to be compatible with the install, I fell
back to my familiar slackware and had a Slack 8.1 machine up and
completely running within a couple hours.

So my comfort zone is Slackware but if you have trouble with detailed
customizations and such, you might prefer Redhat since Redhat offers
many "quick and easy" config scripts to get you started.

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:58:26AM -0400, Sunfire wrote:
> hi...
> i was wondering... i was told by someone that didnt claim to know that much
> about unix/linux that i "needed" to change my server over from redhat to
> slackware... so instead of updating to redhat8.0 he wants me to update to
> slackware 8.1.  he said to do that because of the reasons i will list..(not
> all of them because it would be a very bad flame on redhat).
> 1. redhat is out of date
> 2. redhat takes too many resources and is slower by over 50%
> 3. doesnt take as much disk space and is easier to install.
> 4. redhat updates every few months or so......
> 
> i think i will end now after that it gets into too many flames if it hasn't
> already...sorry if i posted stuff like that but i need to know somehow to
> weigh this out..because i cant afford to "try it" on both systems to find
> out for myself... it gets too expensive...
> 
> tnx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
   See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html