Differences between Red Hat and Debian installs

Posted Nov 18th 2005 12:19PM by Scott Granneman

So I'm talking to my pal Robert Citek, and I'm ribbing him for not using Debian-based distros more and sticking with Fedora, and he sends me this email explaining his reasoning. I found it quite thought-provoking, and wanted to share it with you guys & get your input.

The last time I did a Debian install was using Libranet 2.8.1, so things may have changed. But from my experience Debian and RH/FC have two different install strategies:

Debian: ask a little, install a little, ask a little, install a little, {repeat}, configure

RH/FC: ask a lot, install everything without question, configure

That strategy carries over into how deb and rpms are function. Debs will pause and ask questions during an install. Rpms just install with defaults which can be altered later.

The difference in strategy allows me to script RH/FC installs, whereas I have to babysit Debian installs. Being a scripting/automating kinda guy, that makes me like RH/FC much more than Debian because then I can do other things during the installation. I have no desire to babysit an install or an upgrade.

OK, so what do you think? Is Robert right on, or full of it? And how do we get him over to the Debian side o' things?

(Check out all of our posts on Debian, Fedora, RPMs, and installations.)

Reader Comments

(Page 1)

1. Apt-Get is to sexy not to have

Posted at 6:34AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Joe Taylor

2. What can "apt-get install foo" do that "yum install foo" can't?

I currently use Fedora Core 4 as a desktop system and Debian Sarge as a server system. I think both have superior package management systems, but they also both have their niches. Fedora newer software and it's more "usable" in terms of features, but a lot of that software can be buggy (from my experience). Debian may have "older" software, but it's much more stable. I don't care what the Fedora FAQ says when it comes to being "bleeding edge", I rely on personal experience to tell me these things.

I can afford to have my desktop system rebooted if it becomes unstable. But my server, which provides an array of services to which I need access 24/7? I need a reliable OS for mission-critical operations.

Who says you can't run both in conjunction with each other? I say they complement each other quite nicely.

Posted at 6:34AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Christopher Parker

3. Tell your friend to RTFM! debconf is insanely flexible and can be preconfigured. Personally I use debian on all my server system, and ubuntu on all my desktops. Life does'nt get much better.

debconf man page: http://linux.com.hk/PenguinWeb/manpage.jsp?section=7&name=debconf

Posted at 6:34AM on Dec 19th 2005 by saik0

4. Nope. It isn't true that you have to baby sit your installation with debian. Especially if your using Kubuntu/Ubuntu

Anthony
http://kubuntu101.blogspot.com

Posted at 6:34AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Anthony

5. For anyone not familiar with Debian and ubuntu, this is a useful resource :

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/document_view

Posted at 6:34AM on Dec 19th 2005 by sarangayo

LA AUTO SHOW: Nissan gana el diseño del auto del 2030 LA Auto Show 2009: Volkswagen Up! Lite ¡Un híbrido a diesel! LA Auto Show 2009: VW Beetle Edición Final ¿Es acaso su fin?	Holidash Highlight: Decorating a Fashionista Christmas Tree Daily DIY: Make a Cork Wreath The DIY Reel: Decorate Your Fireplace Like the Pros
Win A Four Seasons Gift Card--Day Seven Luxist Gift Guide 09: Holiday Fragrance Sets TAG Heuer Brings Back the Silverstone Chronograph	Entrepreneur's Journal: Making sure the holiday party doesn't become a legal nightmare Capital One warrants help chip away TARP obligation Kuwaiti fund rakes in $1 billion profit on Citigroup sale
Rolling Stone Magazine to Open a Restaurant Food Network Star Anne Burrell Sued for Sexual Discrimination Bicyclists Fight for Right to Drive-Thru	Photo of the Day (12.6.2009) Japanese hotels offer track-side views for trainspotters Three exciting winter deals from the Four Seasons