Debian vs. Red Hat (was Re: [tlug] Mandrake vs. Red Hat)

[Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei@example.com>]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:09:59PM +0900,
Jonathan Byrne wrote:
> Matt Doughty (mdoughty@example.com) wrote:
> > I can't think of any reason to use RH over debian. The install
> 
> I could think of a few minor issues, such as Debian using 
> inetd by default and having a fairly wide-open default install,

Oh, I can think of a biggie. 

With Debian, stable releases are *old*. Potato is ancient, woody isn't even
released and it's already old, and sid--well, there's a reason it's called
"unstable". In contrast, Red Hat's stable versions do tend to have reasonably
new versions of all the packages. Obviously, this can cut both ways, as RH has
a tendency to give you *un*reasonably new versions of gcc, glibc, kernel,
etc....

Having said that, I do run Debian unstable at home and haven't thought of
switching out. On the other hand, my home machine doesn't do anything
mission critical, so I usually don't mind if something breaks for a few
days.

-- 
Shimpei Yamashita                               http://www.shimpei.org/
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?    -- Steve Wright