Re: Kubuntu and Debian
Agreed -- #/bin/bash is certainly better programming practice. Unfortunately, everyone assumes bash these days -- i see plenty of scripts that use bash-specific features and still say #/bin/sh, good practice or not.
Because of that, in my opinion (emphasis on opinion), it's not worth switching to dash, not just because of the script issue, but also just because bash is a perfectly wonderful shell, that I personally couldn't improve upon.
I'm very philosophical with my software, forgive me if I drag on.
I never had any problem with evolving software -- it's evolving software that produced the stable, excellent linux systems we have today (including Kubuntu!!). However, as with any evolution, features basic to the system really need to stay in tact (in real life, assuming the evolutionary theory is true, we notice the most basic life forms -- viruses and bacteria -- still exist, long after they would have otherwise evolved away. They must therefore be a mandatory piece of life, without which life couldn't exist).
As precedent, I can cite the c compiler. There is gcc, the original cc, and multiple vendors also distribute cc's -- no matter who makes it, from the very start, there has been a basic set of features every c compiler must have, for example, -o for the output file name, -c for compile-only (no linking), and so on.
I see inittab and other core system features the same way. I don't care if it's a Sys V init, some blow joe's Init, or upstart -- but whoever makes the software, basic features (such as the inittab) need to stay in place. Evolving software doesn't have to remove core features -- add to them!!
There is another reason for this: standardization. Normally, being strictly standardized is a problem (i cite windows and all other microsoft software), but to some degree, for an administrator to be able to go to every distribution installed at whatever company and know that there will always be an inittab to check, and that they don't have to know about a gazillion different ways the system could start up -- that's a feature, not a bug.
Once again, a lot of this is opinions -- i'm sure somebody out there absolutely hates the inittab (or thinks there's a far better way of doing things), but until someone can point me to a major security hole with the inittab, i'd like to believe that this antique core feature of the system is just as sturdy today as it was 15 years ago.
Could be the problem....
Next time I boot my desktop (which has kubuntu on it) i'll see if I enabled the univers repo (if not, it was one more id ten t error to add to my list...
).
I think we'll have to agree to disagree
I still use Kubuntu on my desktop, as it's the only distro that seems to be able to detect the basic hardware needed to boot the system, besides knoppix (which is strange, really, since I bought this system specifically because it *claimed* linux compatibility).
However, having used both (and using both), my experience tells me debian is easier to administrate (though useage is basically the same), and seems closer to the "plain vanilla linux" that i've always known.
Originally posted by kubicle
Because of that, in my opinion (emphasis on opinion), it's not worth switching to dash, not just because of the script issue, but also just because bash is a perfectly wonderful shell, that I personally couldn't improve upon.
Originally posted by kubicle
I never had any problem with evolving software -- it's evolving software that produced the stable, excellent linux systems we have today (including Kubuntu!!). However, as with any evolution, features basic to the system really need to stay in tact (in real life, assuming the evolutionary theory is true, we notice the most basic life forms -- viruses and bacteria -- still exist, long after they would have otherwise evolved away. They must therefore be a mandatory piece of life, without which life couldn't exist).
As precedent, I can cite the c compiler. There is gcc, the original cc, and multiple vendors also distribute cc's -- no matter who makes it, from the very start, there has been a basic set of features every c compiler must have, for example, -o for the output file name, -c for compile-only (no linking), and so on.
I see inittab and other core system features the same way. I don't care if it's a Sys V init, some blow joe's Init, or upstart -- but whoever makes the software, basic features (such as the inittab) need to stay in place. Evolving software doesn't have to remove core features -- add to them!!
There is another reason for this: standardization. Normally, being strictly standardized is a problem (i cite windows and all other microsoft software), but to some degree, for an administrator to be able to go to every distribution installed at whatever company and know that there will always be an inittab to check, and that they don't have to know about a gazillion different ways the system could start up -- that's a feature, not a bug.
Once again, a lot of this is opinions -- i'm sure somebody out there absolutely hates the inittab (or thinks there's a far better way of doing things), but until someone can point me to a major security hole with the inittab, i'd like to believe that this antique core feature of the system is just as sturdy today as it was 15 years ago.
Originally posted by kubicle
Next time I boot my desktop (which has kubuntu on it) i'll see if I enabled the univers repo (if not, it was one more id ten t error to add to my list...
).
Originally posted by kubicle
I still use Kubuntu on my desktop, as it's the only distro that seems to be able to detect the basic hardware needed to boot the system, besides knoppix (which is strange, really, since I bought this system specifically because it *claimed* linux compatibility).
However, having used both (and using both), my experience tells me debian is easier to administrate (though useage is basically the same), and seems closer to the "plain vanilla linux" that i've always known.
you won't get happy, I daresay ...
Comment