[CentOS] Re: New to CentOS, and wondering about application availability

[Bryan J. Smith]

Dave Gutteridge <dave at tokyocomedy.com> wrote:
> I'm the "he" in question, and for me there was no
"sticking"
> with FC3.  I only made the commitment to move from Windows
> to Linux a few weeks ago,

And I can appreciate that.  That's why I tried to explain
this.  I had _0_ issue with explaining this.  In fact, I
blame Red Hat for the issue of not using revisions anymore --
something that causes many innocent people to assume that a
FC4 package will build on RHEL4 (and CentOS 4).

My problem here is that someone else keeps jumping all over
me anytime I try to explain something.  I guess I shouldn't
be on this list then?  I thought the explaination was
pertinent, given your post.  And based on this follow-up, I
believe I was indeed correct in that assertion.

> and FC4 is the only distribution they make available on
> Fedora's own site, so I assumed it was the current one.

Actually, Red Hat makes all distros since mid-RHL7 available
on its site.  This includes all Fedora Core versions, 1-4. 
Again, I don't blame you one bit here.  And I continue to
chastize Red Hat for not using a revision model.

> So, I started with FC4, thinking it was merely the most
> recent, not realizing that it was actually a bleeding edge
> experimental version.

Correct.  And you were quite innocent in that, because Red
Hat does a poor job of revisioning Fedora Core.  That's my #1
complaint with them.

> On the Fedora Mailing list, someone recommended that I go
> with CentOS. But now that I'm here, I'm starting to regret
> it a bit.

CentOS is an excellent distro, and probably the best fit for
you now.

> While Karanbir's posting helps, some of the links I chased
> down and my attempts to set up repositories have not worked
> so far and it's frustrating.

The added CentOS repositories and DAG's go a long way to
helping.

> This is probably just frustration talking, but at this
> point, I'm missing Windows. At least with Windows, there is
> far less confusion about versions and compatibility.

You obviously didn't run Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 then.  ;->
Microsoft has a similar history on their "enterprise" release
too.

Plus you have the "trojan horse" issue in the Windows world
of software.  That's virtually unheard of in the UNIX/Linux
world.

> Ditto for Mac.

MacOS X rules.  If you have it, just stick with it.
Use "fink" and get all the Freedomware you want.

> I've been experimenting with Linux for three weeks now, and
> I still have no idea which distribution actually works, let
> alone which will suit my needs.

They all work.  They all meet needs.

The problem is familiarity.  UNIX and Windows are completely
different beasts.  It takes a while to "deprogram" yourself
from the Windows world into the UNIX one.

> I have no idea what I gain or lose by choosing Debian
builds
> over Red Hat builds or vice versa... and I've read reviews
> and distro watch and all that. I'm drowning in a sea of 
> choices, and not in a good way.

Choice is the problem.

Ironically, you had it in the Windows world too, you just
didn't know about it because Microsoft does all it can to get
you to only buy its own or core partner's products.

No one can mandate what Linux is, unlike Microsoft in the
Windows world.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)