[KLUG Members] RedHat v. Mandrake -- WAS: Creating ISO images

[Bryan J. Smith]

Tony Gettig wrote:
> I know Red Hat is what a lot of folks on this list prefer,
> but I hafta say I'm really impressed with the ease of
> installation and configuration of Mandrake 8.1, both as
> a workstation and a server. FWIW.

People who prefer RedHat, like myself, don't use RedHat because it's
"easier."  In fact, Mandrake has RedHat whipped in installation and
administration ease AFAIC.

The problem is Mandrake doesn't have the "overall QA" of RedHat
IMHO.

First off, the "numbering game" is a "marketing game" to Mandrake. 
RedHat uses major release numbers to signify GCC/GLibC changes. 
Mandrake has done it to signify "we're ahead of RedHat" (5.3) or "we
made this cool GUI change" (6.1->7.0).  I trust a _technical_ method
to version numbering.  With 5.0, RedHat "warned" me of the GLibC 2
move.  With 7.0, RedHat "warned" me of the GCC change**.

Secondly, I've seen problems go _uncorrected_ in Mandrake's
installer for several releases.  There was a chicken/egg
install-time issue with Mandrake 6.0-7.1 if you used multiple SCSI
CD-ROM drives.  RedHat's installers have their bugs, but they
usually fix them within weeks.  Mandrake seems more "worried" about
commodity hardware than non-commodity.

Third, RedHat takes sets of packages, patches them, tests them
internally, patches them some more, tests them internally with other
packages (alpha), tests them externally with other packages (beta
c/o Rawhide), and then finally releases product.  I know about
Mandrake "Cooker" and other similar models they use, but I find only
RedHat seems to put months of QA into their packages.  Even if this
means that they "lag" on release, especially when it comes to
kernels.

This means a lot to "IT Managers," because the model isn't so
"unproven."  In fact, I'd argue it is the combination of OSS driven
development with traditional QA that makes the best "integrated
product."  And RedHat _excels_ at this.  Furthermore, they fund a
_lot_ of GPL development, and I cannot say the same about other
distros (Caldera, SuSE, etc...), although Mandarke is more of the
same.

Other distros have their strengths/weaknesses.  E.g., Debian
addresses a completely different market than RedHat IMHO.  Although
RedHat could learn a lot from Debian -- e.g., Apt (which Connectix
has done with RPM).

-- Bryan

**P.S.  Sometimes RedHat does it's "own thing."  E.g., the GCC 2.96
"issue."  Understand they had their reasons (they needed various GCC
3.0 features, largely for Itanium and other support).  The funny
thing is that RedHat's GCC 2.96 fork was _more_tested/compatible_
than some of the 2.95.4 releases used in distros (e.g., Mandrake)
that the GCC did *NOT* recommend using.  Mandrake is using GCC 2.96
in 8.x anyway though.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, Engineer        mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org   
AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc.     http://www.linux-wlan.org
SmithConcepts, Inc.          http://www.SmithConcepts.com