[svlug] RH dependencies, not using up2date

Rafael Skodlar,,, raffi at linwin.com
Tue Jul 30 00:09:16 PDT 2002


On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:01:37PM -0700, Drew Bertola wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 11:54:14PM -0700, Rafael Skodlar,,, wrote:
> > Here is the answer with no answer:
> 
> More like the FUD.

Why bother to comment?

> 
> > Like everybody else I to go through the same RPM hell at work since our
> > customers use Redhat. While trying to setup decent workstation for
> > compiling OS stuff I run into all kinds of dependencies problems.
> > Wasting a lot of time I usualy give up after forth or fifth dependent
> > RPM fails to install. It was better in RH5.2 days.
> 
> Are you kidding?  Anyway, what do you include in "OS stuff?"  That's a
> very broad umbrella. I have know problem setting up a workstation.  I
> can compile modules just fine.  So, is it kernel stuff that's causing

No.

> you a problem?  About the only thing I haven't tried to build is gcc,
> though my roommate has no problem.

Apparently you are playing with different toys than I do.

> 
> Hmm, you do this over and over and you're still not good at it yet?  I
> wouldn't let my boss know that.  In any case, it won't get solved by

First you are late to dinner then you don't know what you are talking
about. So don't tell your boss.

> ranting about it.  You have to ask more precise questions.  I actually

I did not have questions. Just comments (which you did not like or
understand), live with it.

> think you're more interested in making noise than finding a better
> solution.

Noise? I did find a better solution, it's called Debian 3.0 at the
moment. So far I have had better experience with it than RH7.[012]. No
bloated code on my drive yet.

At the same time I'm very happy to read your (late) news about you being
able to solve all problems with RPMs. I have my doubts about that and
will use my right to express my opinions just like you do, but obviously
we have different views.

> 
> 5.2 was good, but it didn't do much like ... stateful firewalling,
> USB, movie playing...  But heck, it's binary compatible with ... itself!
> 
> > There was an article on the web somewhere about RPM dependencies
> > problems recently. It's getting worse by the month and I'm not the only 
> > one noticing this. I tried all kinds of rpm tools but they are not ready
> > for prime time yet.
> 
> I believe every "article on the web somewhere."

You are dogs years behind SVLUG threads. Sometimes it pays to read the
whole thread before jumping on most likely wrong conclusion and write
rather offensive messages. In short, others expressed similar experience
to mine and documented it well.

> 
> > As a long time Redhat user and customer I'm disappointed to see them
> > ignore those who supported them through all these years. I bought many
> > boxes for work and home and never asked for help so their never used '30
> > day support' was clear profit for them. They could provide some kind of
> > transition to a better package management system, or even merge with
> > better Debian packaging tools, which was discussed years ago, but they
> > ignore the issue. They never improved their selection for type of system
> > installation and always introduce annoying bugs that should be noticed
> > before the release.
> 
> Debian isn't the easiest choice for newbies.  What discouraged me when
> I gave Debian a go a couple years back was the need to create a half
> dozen or more diskettes just to start the install.  The process was
> hideous.  It meant that Debian wasn't for newbies (since I wasn't
> exactly a newbie then).  I want more newbies.  I want 100 million of
> them as soon as possible.  Debian isn't getting us there.  Red Hat are
> (and Mandrake, etc).

Debian made significant progress compared to Redhat and it's worth a try
for newbies also. As a matter of fact I'll go on the limb and recommend
exactly that. I'm doing just that.

> 
> > For that reason I can no longer recommend RH. My message to Redhat is
> > fix RPM mess and install process or else. And I won't pay for their
> > expensive "per system support" to get automatic bug fixes which should
> > be free on the first place.
>      ^^^^ 
> It's all open source.  Take some of your FREE time to fix it.  They

Nonsense. I said specificaly that bug fixes should be free. I bought a
box with expectation of working code and warranty on bugs for that code.

They could provide a decent tool (something Debian provides for example)
for automatic access to bug fixes without asking for more money. Instead
they torture you through ever changing location to errata on their
website so you can't write a simple script to retrive the code.

> won't pay you any more than you want to pay them.  Of course, if you
> NEED it done and don't want to wait for them, you could always call
> and contract with them to fix it.  That's how they pay their staff.

I bought the box remember? Marketing guy huh? Sell broken code, charge
for fixes. Hmm, where else did I see that?

> > Let the competition talk.
> 
> Red Hat wins there.  I won't say whether I like or dislike the company
> or current product, but it is clearly the choice of more linux users.

Good for you. To you Linux is a religion, to me just a code to bring
computer to life.

> 
> -- 
> +---------------------- T h e C o o p . n e t ----------------------+
> | Drew Bertola         Hosting - Colocation      Tel:  408-738-8337 |
> | TheCoop.net      Programming - Administration  Mob:  408-887-0426 |
> | drew at thecoop.net    Open Source Specialists    http://thecoop.net |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

OK, this horse is dead by now.

-- 
Rafael



More information about the svlug mailing list