fc3 evaluation

[Rick Stevens]

Parek Andrada wrote:
> First off be gentle, noob here.

Not a problem.

> I'm trying to evaluate various freeware linux distros to implement as
> desktop and server. Seems that there's a myriad of distros to choose
> from and I want to know some people that have gone thru my path.

Ok, but these are my opinions and are possibly biased.

> 1. Mandrake seems to be consumer-oriented. Official requires you to
> pay yearly membership for updates although you can get updates without
> being a member (no fee) if you urpmi from mirrors other than Mandrake.

Mandrake used to be the "hacker's Linux" and yes, they got kind of
"commercial".

> 2. A lot of red hat-based distros like wbel (very active mailing
> lists, but just maintained by 1 person), centos (updates regularly as
> community based), lineox (did not test), Scientific Linux, etc.

I think you'll find Red Hat the most commonly implemented (and imitated)
distribution, simply because they've been around the longest with a
"professional" support team.  Also note that a number of the kernel
developers (Alan Cox, for instance) are Red Hat employees.  The only
free version of Red Hat is Fedora Core, and it's technically not a "Red
Hat product" (see the disclaimer at http://fedora.redhat.com).

> 3. Suse based, novell (requires fees for updates after 1 free year),
> yoper (synaptic upgrades)

SuSE is a good distribution, seems to have slightly better non-English
support and, on occasion, fewer problems with "oddball" hardware than
FC, but it is also commercial.

> Also tried debian, ubuntu, slackware and freebsd and the more I test
> the more I get confused on what to use as some has
> strengths/weaknesses. Now, I just want some honest opinions not biased
> on some distro although I am biased on fc3 as I am sending to this
> lists!

The only true free versions you mention are debian, unbuntu and
slackware.  FreeBSD (and NetBSD, for that matter) are not Linux
distributions.  Linux patterns itself more after the SVR4 (System Five,
Release 4) version of the Unix kernel from Bell Labs.  Also remember
that "Linux" refers to the kernel itself--not the entire O.S.  The
whole O.S. should be more properly referred to as Gnu-Linux (since most
of the system utilities come from the Gnu project).

FreeBSD and NetBSD are derivatives of BSD (Berkeley Standard
Distribution) Unix, which is based on the System-7 release of Unix from
Bell Labs.  It's fine, but it doesn't work like the Linux kernel.  For
example, there are very few run-time kernel tuning features, and the
kernel is monolithic (doesn't have "pluggable" drivers--you have to
build drivers into the kernel).

And let's not forget the old adage from "The Unix Hater's Handbook":

"There are two things to come out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD.  We don't
think this is a coincidence!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     rstevens at vitalstream.com -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-                       When in doubt, mumble.                       -
----------------------------------------------------------------------