Re: [Sheflug] Re: Suggestions of distro?

[Richard Lowe <xxxxx [at] xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Barrie Bremner (baz [at] barriebremner.com) wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris J <cej [at] nccnet.co.uk> writes:
> 
>     Chris> Will wrote:
>     >>  I have to disagree on that - OpenBSD is a very harsh
>     >> install. IMO most Linux users would not have seen anything
>     >> quite like it before.
>     >> 
> 
>     Chris> Then Richard scribbled:
>     >>  No, it's easy to install. The instructions are on the inside
>     >> of every CD that you buy from the Open BSD people.
> 
>     Chris> It's a half and half. If the user is technically minded,
>     Chris> then OpenBSD will install quite straight-fowardly. The
>     Chris> difficult part with OpenBSD is the disk partitioning as on
>     Chris> x86 architecture you have to partition the disk with a
>     Chris> *single* partition (well you can use two or more, but that
>     Chris> gets interesting), and within that one partition you create
>     Chris> a disklabel - it doesn't use "standard" partitions, per se.
> 
> Just to throw in my 2p on this one.
> 
> I've installed Redhat, OpenBSD, Debian, FreeBSD and Slackware
> pretty much in that order over the years.
> 
> I'd say that they're all pretty straightforward installs - not a
> problem - stick in the CD/boot floppies get a booting system most of
> the time :-)
> 
> The hard part is configuring the systems.
> 
> Redhat - urgh. Clear out the cruft, and shut off services.
>



> OpenBSD - erm - OK, figure out how to do anything, get patches,
> install ports. Hard work. Installing from the tarballs is a little
> wierd.
>

I'm confused as the patches you're refering to...
The first things I've done when I've installed, has been to install vim,
and apply the errata (although I guess they could be the patches you
mean, but applying all the known security fixes after an install is
fairly standard).

> Debian - still haven't mastered dselect, but apt rocks, shame Potato
> is so far behind for desktop use. 
> 

dselect isn't nice, there's no real reason to have to use it :)

> FreeBSD - OOooo. Once again, needs quite a bit of configuration, but
> it's all on the CD, the manuals rock and it's all nice and current.
> 

I'm confused by this also, I've done very little to all the *BSD boxes
I've had, and they run fine.

all I've done on the router here, is /etc/pf.conf and /etc/nat.conf.
and named.conf.

I obviously did a little more to the machine I have around for testing,
but not much more than adding some nfs mounts to /etc/fstab.

and installing the couple of apps I wanted.

> It might just be me, but I'd rather have something like Redhat (I
> guess SuSE and Mandrake too) that can get GNOME/KDE + user apps going
> in no time, plus server packages that aren't much harder.
> 
> The BSDs are a little bit too much work for me, but I haven't spent
> much time learning up on them.

OpenBSD is a real time save on routers/servers.
Installing the things you want, is sadly a far smaller task than
removing the things you don't, these days.

> Roll on Woody tho :-)
> 
> Baz.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Barrie J. Bremner		OpenPGP public key ID: F78CEE08
> baz [at] barriebremner.com	http://barriebremner.com/
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk . 
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to 
> shef-lug-request [at] list.sheflug.org.uk with the word
> "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 
> 
>   GNU the choice of a complete generation.
> 
-- 
[ Richard Lowe - richlowe - richlowe [at] richlowe.net ]
[             http://www.richlowe.net/            ]

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk . 
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to 
shef-lug-request@list.sheflug.org.uk with the word
"unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.