I my self am a RedHat user, and I have thougt alot about going back to slackware over a few issues that seem serious to me, these are: 1: CHANGES, redhat seems to have changed alot of things (although change IS good) these digressions from what is normally done with other distros SHOULD have been documented. IE: they way cron is handled (the whole run-parts bit) and init, which I still dont fully understand:( In either case, DOCUMENTATION would have made these non-porblems. 2: CONTROL: under all distros that I have used in the past, with almost any tool, you can do something the easy way, or just go hacking about by hand. RPM does not allow one to hack its database by hand, an option I have needed a few times..would have made life soo much easier 3: COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE SUPPRT: (ok, so this isnt really an anti-RH argument) its commercial, let them do what they want. if you hack your system enough, it will run..its still linux. 4:Arguably, one of the best things about *nix is that it is NOT windows. Why the heck does the default WM under RH look like windows? Im sure its great for amking new users feel more comofrtable at first, but they ARE new LINUX users, show them linux, NOT windows. 5:do-all-tools: One of the founding pricipals of unix (correct me if I wrong) is the ability to use a numbers of small, efficient tools together to get a job done, allowing versatility and control without monster programs. things like linuxconf and netcfg and thier kin are somewhat contrary to this concept.
Digressions from compatability with other systems is a MickySoft stratagy and does not reflect well on Linux, as the formost name in Linux in the general public's eyes, they should be setting a better example. Fragmentation and in-compatability were the downfall of the early *nixes, lets not suffer the same fate.
Slashdot Mirror
I my self am a RedHat user, and I have thougt alot about going back to slackware over a few issues that seem serious to me, these are: :( In either case, DOCUMENTATION would have made these non-porblems.
1: CHANGES, redhat seems to have changed alot of things (although change IS good) these digressions from what is normally done with other distros SHOULD have been documented. IE: they way cron is handled (the whole run-parts bit) and init, which I still dont fully understand
2: CONTROL: under all distros that I have used in the past, with almost any tool, you can do something the easy way, or just go hacking about by hand. RPM does not allow one to hack its database by hand, an option I have needed a few times..would have made life soo much easier
3: COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE SUPPRT: (ok, so this isnt really an anti-RH argument) its commercial, let them do what they want. if you hack your system enough, it will run..its still linux.
4:Arguably, one of the best things about *nix is that it is NOT windows. Why the heck does the default WM under RH look like windows? Im sure its great for amking new users feel more comofrtable at first, but they ARE new LINUX users, show them linux, NOT windows.
5:do-all-tools: One of the founding pricipals of unix (correct me if I wrong) is the ability to use a numbers of small, efficient tools together to get a job done, allowing versatility and control without monster programs. things like linuxconf and netcfg and thier kin are somewhat contrary to this concept.
Digressions from compatability with other systems is a MickySoft stratagy and does not reflect well on Linux, as the formost name in Linux in the general public's eyes, they should be setting a better example. Fragmentation and in-compatability were the downfall of the early *nixes, lets not suffer the same fate.