[svlug] Kickstart woes

[Greg Retkowski]

First I'll point out that this thread was originally about a problem with
kickstart linux, a problem that was resolved with the final determination
that it was a known bug. Somehow it's turned into an off-topic fight over
distributions. I'm of the camp that use whatever suits you; as this is
pretty much a pointless argument. Yet the fight continues.

So at a minimum I'll chime in with some of my thoughts.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> That's not what I said. I simply said that Red Hat wasn't designed to
> be a server OS (at least when you compare it to Debian). For a Desktop
> or a Laptop, I'd recommend Red Hat over Debian

I would say it was _specifically_ 'designed' to be a server OS, as RedHat
Inc designed it and it's pretty clear they are after the server market
more than any other (i.e. desktop or embeded). 

Some features I would consider fairly important for a Server OS would be
decent install procedure, good hardware detection, and automated
installation procedure. In the past debian has been lacking in the first
two, and I believe they are still without the third. 

> Red Hat's answer is: use kickstart  (which takes longer to setup) and either
> walk  around to  100 machines  with a  boot CD/floppy,  or if  you're really
> lucky, you get  to use PXE booting  (but you also need  a server motherboard
> and VACM to do all this, which many people don't have).

Kickstart takes very little time to set up at all. Copy over the CD to a
local disk (optional) export it ro,no_root_squash, set up DHCP (also
optional), and use fezbox.com to create a disk image. half hour? hour? not
too long to set up an install server that can be used for an indefinate
number of installs.

Debian has online upgrade but no automated install; redhat has automated
install but not the greatest online upgrade. Six of one, half dozen of the
other. I personally would rather stick in a floppy and reboot 100 machines
than sit in front of a CRT and keyboard for each of thos machines while a
Deb CD spun, but that's just me, YMMV.

It has been my experience that once you've got a proven configuration,
with a given level of OS, applications, and custom code you would try to
avoid deviation from that norm. In my experience I much rather leave my
servers at a given OS level (like RH6.1) while applying patches (errata),
rather than doing full OS online upgrades every time a new version comes
out. The OS does not get upgraded to a newer revision unless/untill a
feature comes available that is important enough to justify it.

> Sure,  I could  be telling  you: "That's  ok, just  buy VA  hardware, we  do
> support all this and let you remotely upgrade Red Hat", and while I'll still
> recommend  VA hardware  and VACM  :-)  I'm still  saying that  having to  go
> through all this is ridiculous compared to what debian offers.

Could you be telling us to use the distro VA adopted, as apposed to the
one the competetors use? ;)

-- Greg

Greg Retkowski                          Mail: greg at rage.net
Raging Network Services                 URL:  http://www.rage.net/