FreeBSD vs. RedHat

[Erik Steffl]

SoloCDM wrote:
...
> When RedHat started out, it had some conveniences, but it quickly
> become so bizarre and discombobulated that I am feed-up, a voodoo act
> and standing on one's head is involved.  Most of the so-called-experts
> in RPMs don't know what they're doing from one minute to the next.  
> Usually installing the tarball (my form of description) is the only
> available option.
> 
> So many of the RPM distributors are inventing and reinventing new ways
> to reroute the file to its original location.  Often the files go
> through 6 links before you capture the original file.  That doesn't
> include the original program from recognizing other renamed filenames
> that produce optional executions.  This usually keeps some of the RPM
> installations from installing, *unless*, all the rubble is ripped out
> before you start.  Often that *breaks* the whole structure/hierarchy
> apart.
> 
> Now distributors have moved to an option that supposedly entices
> enterprises.  Usually it forces the installations to conform to their
> type of networking.

   [conform to their type of networking? what do you mean?]

   there is LSB (http://www.linuxbase.org/) and FHS 
(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) to help to solve these problems. I think 
it's getting better.

   you'd be better with other distros though - debian (packages 
dependencies etc. are maintained, you can upgrade across major version 
fairly easily (I already went through 3 major version, IIRC, with same 
system)) or slackware (very minimalistic and clean, you pretty much 
manage everything yourself (this might not be true anymore, I didn't use 
it for quite some time))

   still, and this is pretty much for all unix(like) systems - install 
the packages that are part of the distribution only. Anything third 
party install in /opt/name-version (preferably from source) and create 
links as appropriate (stow is a great help). That's the only way to keep 
the system manageable, whether it's redhat or freeBSD.

	erik