I can't comment on Debain, being a Redhat user myself, but I have recently discovered apt (Advanced Package Tool), which is used by Debian, but has recently been ported to work with rpm's on Redhat systems, for example. It makes life much much easier when you want to download and install or upgrade your system. There is even a nice gui frontend for it called synaptic.

You can check it out at freshrpms.net.

Good luck.

Randy

If you want to know if Debian has a package, then look at those lists again.

Install Debian on a spare box or partition, there's no need to just dump Windoze…errr, Redhat.

System Restore is a "lifesaver" on a crappy OS that needs it.

On Linux you backup your important files on a regular basis with a script run out of cron, but will probably only need the backups if there is a hardware failure.

"Running Linux" and "The Rute User's Exposition and Tutorial" (http://rute.sourceforge.net) are both written for Debian and Redhat, and there isn't a lot of difference.

If you run Linux from the commandline (and I don't mean a raw tty: there are great tools like screen and mc that make it very nice and a good deal more free and efficient than with a gui…) all the distros are pretty much the same: It's Linux, after all, and the distros all amount to window dressing.

As for package managers, they are rather like the GUI: They make simple things easy and complex things a drag if not impossible.

Much better to take a little time to learn to install from source, and you will be able to make use of any application, even those your distro disdains.

And you can customize them to boot….

Alan C

> searching with terms like 'redhat vs debian'.  Comments are welcome,
> especially experiences as a user.

I moved to debian from redhat a little over a year ago. I used redhat versions 4.1 through 7.3 but i didn't really like the direction they were going with the gnome desktop in 8.0 and later. I figured I'd check and see what another distribution had to offer.

> Major advantages of Debian:
>
> 1)  Upgrades easier more reliable.  APT package manager best in the
> industry.

Yes, apt is very nice. However, the there are a number of package tools with somewhat overlapping functionality — dpkg, apt-get, aptitude/dselect. Man pages are you friend but It takes a little time to get used to what can do what with the functionality scattered around a bit.

> 2)  Choice of stable, testing, latest releases.  Easy upgrades of any or all
> packages.

I have run all three. I would choose stable if you hardware is old for it to support it properly. Otherwise, I would choose sid/unstable. Stable, is well, stable and things work and you get security updates. Unstable is where a lot of newer stuff comes out, sometimes a thing will break, but usually an update comes out within a day or so.

Testing is a newer in-between thing which picks up packages which have aged enough in unstable to vet their most glaring bugs. Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as I'd hoped. The problem is that testing bugs can be longstanding as new updates don't come in until dependencies clear. Unstable bugs aren't really much more frequent in my experience and they get fixed quickly.

Your mileage may vary, see what you like. Be aware it is easy to dist-upgrade to a newer package set, i.e., from stable to testing to unstable but difficult to go in reverse order.

> 3)  Very active and enthusiastic community for support.
>
> 4)  Candor and Transparency.  Bug system is open.  You can even get ratings
> on how well each package maintainer has handled bugs in the past.  This is
> where the lack of commercial constraints is most apparent.
>
> Major advantages of Redhat:
>
> 1)  More likely to find a new package as an rpm than a deb.  (e.g. latest
> release of  Python).  But I see Debian's repository is bigger.  I'm
> confused.

Yes. A big weakness of debian is that if you have new hardware, there might not be a debian package for you. For example, if your video card needs XFree86 4.3 (because it is recent), then you can be out of luck with debian since they only offer 4.2. (Yes, I know you can compile XFree86 yourself, and I know about the experimental packages. But it's still a pain.) Stable has an even more ancient 4.1. This is a major reason for people not being able to use debian stable.

> 2)  Redhat systems more commonly seen in corporate settings, and other
> places you might find yourself working.

Redhat offers support. Debian does too. Redhat will do both hand-holding and bug fixing in exchange for a fee. It is easier to contract with one entity like redhat than a potential legion of debian developers.

> 3)  Redhat is the standard "platform" that major applications like Oracle
> are ported to.  Use another platform, and you might have trouble getting
> application support.

True. And redhat is a fine linux distribution. People use it because of a lot of reasons.

> Questions:
>
> 1)  What are the differences I'll need to learn in moving from Redhat to
> Debian?  Filesystem, procedures, etc.

You have to survive the installation. You will want to know what hardware you have and what some of the major kernel modules you need are called.

> 2)  How much effort in setting up peripherals, network services, etc.?  I've
> heard that Libranet helps with this setup.  What about Progeny?  Any
> experiences?

I found that debian network setup was easier than redhats. Printers are similar, you can use redhat's printtool in debian too.

> 3) Any likely disappointments - things that I will discover *after*
> making a big effort to move.

Check that your video card works with Xfree86 4.2 or 4.1 depending on if you want to go unstable or stable.

> 4)  Can rpm packages be converted to deb packages?  I've heard 'alien' can
> convert deb's to rpm's, but is not reliable.  Going the other way should be
> easier, since the rpm features are fewer than deb package features.

Yes, but I haven't done much of the that.

> 5)  Will package management ever be as easy as Windows?  The XP System
> Restore utility is a life saver.

Backup your /home, /etc and /usr/local. I like to have a seperate /home partition. That way you can tar up /etc and /usr/local, store them in somewhere under /home and proceed to blow away your system. In addition to swap, you probably want more than two partitions, but i consider / ` /home ` <swap> to be the minimum number of linux partitions.

Don't worry about debian maintained packages. To make a list of your packages, use

dpkg --get-selections > file

After restore or to setup a new machine with the same stuff

dpkg --set-selections < file
apt-get update && apt-get -u upgrade

Package management sucks under windows AFAICT but I haven't used XP. You have to go uninstall, then install fresh. Sometimes you can lose config information, sometimes you are updating a screen driver and your screen goes to crap in the gap between uninstall and install. In short, Windows is such a lose.

> Thoughts:
>
> Redhat seems to be putting all its effort on *enterprise* systems, where
> setups are done by certified professionals.  This makes it rough on small
> offices and individuals.
>
> I understand their strategy of concentrating on the enterprise
> accounts.  I just wish they would make it more clear, and not raise
> expectations among smaller users like me.
>
> Can Redhat be making any money on individuals and small office users?  I
> know they've lost on sales to me.  I've purchased three releases from them
> ( 7.3, 8.0, and 9 ), and each time I've had to call tech support, sometimes
> multiple calls.  One call wipes out their profit on that sale.

You can use newsgroups and mailing lists for both redhat and debian. And with debian, you don't have anyplace to call. If making tech support calls is important, you may want to stick with redhat.

Johan KULLSTAM