3 ms·
> But, spend enough time in linux-land and you'll find out there's two very different ways of doing things. There's the Debian Way, and the Red Hat Way. For en
by Shared404 3y ago
> But, spend enough time in linux-land and you'll find out there's two very different ways of doing things. There's the Debian Way, and the Red Hat Way.
For enterprise Linux at least.
On my home systems I usually use Alpine or Arch, both of which are distinctly unlike both Debian and RHEL.
- freedomben 3y agoArch for the most part does things the same way that Fedora does. At least, way more the Fedora way than the Debian way. I would consider Arch as part of the "Red Hat" way of doing things.
- Shared404 3y agoI see the argument, but I would disagree. Arch moves fast, but that's about all that it really feels like it has in common with Fedora to me. I suppose that's really a matter of taste though,
- Shared404 3y agoHave some time now, so can elaborate further. Yum/DNF are _extremely_ featureful package managers. They have many nice capabilities, a higher degree of logging, etc. However, they're complex and slow. From the UX side of things, RHEL-like distro's seem to put the most focus on ease of use/vring a complete system out of the box. Arch/Alpine focus on a being much lighter, in the UI, default packages, and distro config. I would probably classify Arch/Alpine as their own minimalist family of distro's
- Alupis 3y agoArch is awesome - if you like tinkering with your system. I don't know if you could call it stable enough to run servers reliably. I am aware some masochists do just that, however. It's wonderful to have a lot of choices within the linux community.