So, anyone using Red Hat 9 yet? Anyone using it got any comments, likes/dislikes etc. about it? I would like some peoples thoughts about it, good points / bad points, anything, post away Stu

I downloaded it from the BitTorrent link they posted on Slashdot when it was released. I haven't installed it yet though. I'll give it a try on a spare HDD I have sitting on my desk after I finish playing with the new NVidia drivers (so far: 2D performance is still worse than the 3xxx series, but random 2D corruption seems to have been fixed, and there are lots of new extensions to play with).

Update:
Okay, I've installed Red Hat 9 now (I'm writing this in Red Hat 9). The install process wouldn't let me use the graphical mode since (as it kind-of explained) I was installing from my HDD. Once the files were copied the first boot configuration was graphical though. The installer detected all of my hardware just fine (monitor, video card, sound card, CD-R, network, USB, mouse, et cetera).

Overall, it looks like they've changed very little since 8.0 (I didn't try 8.1), in the default Gnome realm at least. They upgraded a lot of packages, tweaked BlueCurve's colors and icons a small amount (Qt applications looks a little less BlueCurve-like for some reason; they removed some of the KDE changes some people were complaining about too), and modified their menu organization, and that's about all I notice immediately. That said, there's very little that I would have wanted them to change anyway (e.g., their default PDF viewer bothers me).

I've read there's a lot of nice little lower-level administration changes in 9, but I don't really use Red Hat much (I like Debian far too much). Put simply: I like it, but if you didn't like 8.x there's very little to make you like 9, but there's a chance.



[edited by - Null and Void on April 2, 2003 7:01:49 PM]

I see what you mean! I hate Red Hat 9, as much as I hated Red Hat 8. They just don''t suit how I like to do things! I like Mandrake 9.1, I think it is by far the best version of Mandrake yet (I have had no problems with it), but I also like Gentoo, although find that with my current computer, it is just too slow to be performing big compiles! I will be buying a new computer soon though, and will need to decide between Gentoo and Mandrake, Red Hat I just do not like!

Stuart

mrhodes: I agree completely. I have been using linux for a quite a long time now, but the only time I felt I was learning about the how things worked in linux was when I was using Gentoo! However, I also feel that whilst it is a great learning tool and toy, to actually use as an operating system it lacks. Now I know people will say that is because I haven''t got it set up well, but I feel that unless you can invest a lot of time getting everything sorted, it will in my eyes remain a toy. I think Mandrake has more of a feel on par with Gentoo than Red Hat does though! Red Hat is not my cup of tea

Stu

I''m downloading redhat 9.0 at present just to see how it looks on a spare box i have laying around

I''ve got mandrake 9.1 installed on another of my boxes and i runs like a dream - i''d say its the best distro i''ve ever installed. i do run debian on my server box as well, though my main machine remains resolutely win2k all the way.

quote:Original post by cyanide
Any particular reason for liking debian so much?

Once I became used to Debian's way of doing things, I didn't have to think about doing anything anymore.

I've grown used to where Debian places all of its files (configuration in /etc, files from packages in /usr, my own system files in /usr/local, et cetera).

All executables (by the time they hit stable, at least, but most in unstable too) must have man-pages (just a nice little touch ).

I never have to think about where to get Free packages, they'll be in the Debian APT repository already (GCC with a Windows target? apt-get install mingw. Every recent or commonly uyed automake version? apt-get install automake1.4 automake1.5 automake1.6 automake1.7 ). I never worry about the type of upgrade problems some distros have or had, APT resolves problems really well and the packagers are very careful (Sid went from GCC 2.95 to 3.2 recently, and I didn't really notice anything except the talk about it).

I realize APT is available on other distros now (notably as an unofficial add-on to Red Hat), but that's only half of the issue: Debian's repository is huge and the packagers are great, and dpkg does have some small advantages over RPM (diversions, for example: two different packages can purposefully contain a file with the same path and choose which copy to use; debconf is another thing I like about dpkg, the packages know what questions to ask you during initial configuration, but RPM may have something like that and I just never noticed it). Not to mention that I find the method of creating dpkgs a lot nicer than creating RPMs (personal opinion here, of course).

When it comes to things Debian won't (or can't) touch, apt-get.org has become useful. For really new packages (too unstable or untried for Sid even), non-free packages that the project leaders (or whatever) won't allow Debian to package (MPlayer, WineX), and other such things.

When using Debian on a desktop you have to know what you're doing still to set it up, but it's perfectly easy after that point. For example: if you want hardware detected (mostly) automatically for you when install XFree86, you have to make sure to install mdetect and discover first. This is probably too much to remember to do for most people setting up desktops, but it's a nice level of customizability. The Debian Desktop project aims to provide an easy way to use Debian for people setting up and using desktops eventually...

While I'm an x86-only user (I only own one machine myself, I don't have much money, and I don't have a job at the moment ), Debian goes out of its way to support a relatively large amount of architectures (10 officially right now, one unoffically, and at least one more in the future that the hardware isn't available for yet). This won't matter to most people, but to those who do need to use those less common architectures, it matters a lot .

If none of those reasons are "big" enough for you to use Debian, then maybe you shouldn't use Debian; there's nothing all that wrong with Red Hat. All the little things I like about Debian just add up for me .



[edited by - Null and Void on April 8, 2003 12:02:02 AM]

quote:Original post by Null and Void

Original post by cyanide
Any particular reason for liking debian so much?

Once I became used to Debian''s way of doing things, I didn''t have to think about doing anything anymore.

I''ve grown used to where Debian places all of its files (configuration in /etc, files from packages in /usr, my own system files in /usr/local, et cetera).

All executables (by the time they hit stable, at least, but most in unstable too) must have man-pages (just a nice little touch ).

I never have to think about where to get Free packages, they''ll be in the Debian APT repository already (GCC with a Windows target? apt-get install mingw. Every recent or commonly uyed automake version? apt-get install automake1.4 automake1.5 automake1.6 automake1.7 ). I never worry about the type of upgrade problems some distros have or had, APT resolves problems really well and the packagers are very careful (Sid went from GCC 2.95 to 3.2 recently, and I didn''t really notice anything except the talk about it).

I realize APT is available on other distros now (notably as an unofficial add-on to Red Hat), but that''s only half of the issue: Debian''s repository is huge and the packagers are great, and dpkg does have some small advantages over RPM (diversions, for example: two different packages can purposefully contain a file with the same path and choose which copy to use; debconf is another thing I like about dpkg, the packages know what questions to ask you during initial configuration, but RPM may have something like that and I just never noticed it). Not to mention that I find the method of creating dpkgs a lot nicer than creating RPMs (personal opinion here, of course).

When it comes to things Debian won''t (or can''t) touch, apt-get.org has become useful. For really new packages (too unstable or untried for Sid even), non-free packages that the project leaders (or whatever) won''t allow Debian to package (MPlayer, WineX), and other such things.

When using Debian on a desktop you have to know what you''re doing still to set it up, but it''s perfectly easy after that point. For example: if you want hardware detected (mostly) automatically for you when install XFree86, you have to make sure to install mdetect and discover first. This is probably too much to remember to do for most people setting up desktops, but it''s a nice level of customizability. The Debian Desktop project aims to provide an easy way to use Debian for people setting up and using desktops eventually…

While I''m an x86-only user (I only own one machine myself, I don''t have much money, and I don''t have a job at the moment ), Debian goes out of its way to support a relatively large amount of architectures (10 officially right now, one unoffically, and at least one more in the future that the hardware isn''t available for yet). This won''t matter to most people, but to those who do need to use those less common architectures, it matters a lot .

If none of those reasons are "big" enough for you to use Debian, then maybe you shouldn''t use Debian; there''s nothing all that wrong with Red Hat. All the little things I like about Debian just add up for me .



[edited by - Null and Void on April 8, 2003 12:02:02 AM]




It''s good to see people taking a logical and honest approach to answering questions like these. Too often it feels like the posters must have been sub-adolescents with nothing better to do than bad mouth -=insert distro here=- simply because it''s not what they''re currently running.