LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-24-2003, 08:13 AM   #1
luzi82
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 26

Rep: Reputation: 15
Question is RPM reliable???


In this month I have reinstalled the RedHat Linux many times on my machine. ( more than 20 times ). Everyone say RedHat is stable, linux is stable. here I will tell u how RedHat is stable.

Mozilla:
Mozilla is installed in redhat by default.
If RH8, version = 1.0.1
If RH9, version = 1.2.1
If you wish to upgrade the RH8 mozilla 1.0.1 to 1.3
you have to kill the 1.0.1 mozilla first, then install 1.3.
That is not possible to upgrade the mozilla directly from 1.0.1 to 1.3,
by the RPM provided by mozilla site.
I have not try upgrading RH9 mozilla 1.2.1 to 1.3 directly in this way, if anyone success please tell me.
In window I can upgrade the mozilla directly by the mozilla installer!!!
now I do not let the RH9 install mozilla 1.2.1 by default, after RH installation, then install mozilla 1.3 myself...

KDE 3.1 and xscreensaver 4.07-2:
Odd, my KDE 3.1 does not work well with xscreensaver 4.07-2.
( in both RH8 , 9 )
I cannot make any configure there!!!
But the KDE can work with xscreensaver 4.05.
( I think it is a bug so I tell the KDE bugzilla ).

RPM Package Manager
I think I will not know why RH provide the RPM package of the RPM Package Manager... I have stupidly tried to upgrade the RPM Manager from 4.1.1 to 4.2 with such RPM, then my Penguin die badly.

Well, some linux expert tell us "open your mind" may make your linux way easy. As I say, "Ignoring" may make your linux way more easy..... Leave your Mozilla old, ignore the xscreensaver problem, forget the RPM Package Manager may make u happyer with Linux....

May be I am wrong........

Well, most of my "upgrading" are dependence on the RPM package, and finally all my installations are ruined. Is it better if I use lesser RPM??? But if I do not trust RPM I should not trust the RH Linux also, since RH use RPM for system upgrade.

Do not trust RPM, do not trust RH, what can I trust??? win2k???

The only thing I can trust may be the Original Linux Kernel. Get the Kernel, install xfree86 myself, install KDE myself, install mozilla myself, install xscreensaver myself.............

OK, OK, tell me tell me. Is the RPM system reliable??? Is it better to give up RPM and RH, and put effort on the original Kernel???
 
Old 04-24-2003, 08:22 AM   #2
wapcaplet
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,018

Rep: Reputation: 48
I think RPM is pretty reliable and easy to use, provided you stick with the ones provided by your distribution. If you try using a generic RPM, it doesn't always work, and can cause all sorts of dependency problems. For example, with Mandrake 9, I am stuck with Mozilla 1.1 unless I want to go to the effort to resolve a bunch of dependency problems, or install from source instead.

RPM is fine unless you want to be on the bleeding edge. But then again, if you want to be on the bleeding edge, you're probably using source for everything, and installing directly from CVS

As many people here will tell you, if the RPM system is just too many headaches for you, there are plenty of distributions that want nothing to do with RPM (Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, etc.) Someday I'd like to switch to one of those distros myself, but there is no immediate need for it. My box(es) are running smoothly with Mandrake right now, so why fix what isn't broken?
 
Old 04-24-2003, 08:25 AM   #3
wapcaplet
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,018

Rep: Reputation: 48
Re: is RPM reliable???

Quote:
Originally posted by luzi82
The only thing I can trust may be the Original Linux Kernel. Get the Kernel, install xfree86 myself, install KDE myself, install mozilla myself, install xscreensaver myself.............
That would be Linux From Scratch... but probably not a good idea until you get really comfortable with installing from source.
 
Old 04-24-2003, 08:29 AM   #4
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
hmmm...well I think most people will agree that installing via rpm is a bit easier then installing from source but I'll be the first to admit that rpm has its problems as well. I agree that RedHat's RPM Package Manager is buggy. I find it much easier to roll up my sleeves and install all my rpm packages from a trusty old shell.

It is possible to upgrade mozilla via rpm. A simple:

rpm -Uvh mozilla*

will upgrade the browser. If for some reason the old mozilla packages still exist you can remove them easily:

rpm -qa | grep mozilla

Every package that begins with mozillla-1.0.1 can be removed by doing:

rpm -e mozilla-1.0.1 mozilla-1.0.1-devel etc.

Maybe rpm is not for you though. Have you given installing from source a try?
 
Old 04-24-2003, 08:33 AM   #5
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yeah, I hate rpm. Like wapcaplet says, though, there's plenty of distros that don't use 'em before you have to jump to W2K. Try one of those.

- Just saw your follow up below the reply screen, wapcaplet - there's also CORE - comes with some basic stuff but you have to compile the kernel and anything besides bash and some utils and whatnot that you might want. I'm thinking about ditching it just because you can get it on dialup but really ought to have DSL to build it up. And the faster the machine, the better, though it'll install on most anything.

Off topic but how the hell did you get MuLinux working? I got it off floppy and it *still* never seemed to think it was actually set up.
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:04 AM   #6
luzi82
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 26

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
rpm -Uvh moz* .......

I have tried that command to upgrade from 1.0.1 to 1.3
not success.
The linux then exist 2 mozilla, 1.0.1 and 1.3.
The mozilla profile crash badly.

It seems that the rpm -Uvh is not so reliable.
Although you may use it to cover other older rpm package,
it left uncleared litters which may ruin your systems.

A few days ago I have tried a "Manual RH 8 installation".
install RH8 with minimum configuration. Then try to build rpm step by step.
Fail, I cannot install xFree86.
Ok now I only install xFree86 in RH 8 installation.
then install KDE 3.1.1, mozilla 1.3. Everything may go well. But the date and time configuration mystically not work.
The xscreensaver also go crazy, cannot be configuration by the screensaver panel.......

That is all my experience with RPM...
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:21 AM   #7
fancypiper
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Sparta, NC USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 5,141

Rep: Reputation: 60
# Redhat links
Red Hat Linux Manuals
Maximum RPM
rpmfind
Easier software management: apt4rpm - Red Carpet
Red Hat 8.0 Tips & Tricks

# Redhat 8.0 configuration commands
Configure soundcard:
redhat-config-soundcard
Configure X server:
redhat-config-xfree86
Configure network:
redhat-config-network
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:40 AM   #8
luzi82
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 26

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
.............
after reading your link I realize one thing which M$ is true........

M$ said:
" the cost of maintainment on linux is higher than windows.... "
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:45 AM   #9
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
bah forget that propaganda. If you want to update Mozilla then download all the new files, remove the old ones, and install the new ones. The update (-U) in rpm is very effective execpt for Mozilla for some reason.
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:50 AM   #10
fancypiper
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Sparta, NC USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 5,141

Rep: Reputation: 60
Did you try this command?

rpm -Uvh --force <pkgname>

Sometimes I think there are bad rpms.

If you want to go from source code only, check out Gentoo.

Last edited by fancypiper; 04-24-2003 at 09:52 AM.
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:51 AM   #11
luzi82
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 26

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
=_= wow, don't be angry....

well, If the "rpm -U" is not good for mozilla for SOME REASONS...
how can I know the "rpm -U" do not have OTHER REASONS to crash the other packages...

=_= buggy buggy.....
 
Old 04-24-2003, 09:57 AM   #12
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
Well rpm certainly should not "crash" the program. You may have a corrupt package as many people have said.

don't be angry:

Seems to me that you have personal issues with rpm. Use the source then!
 
Old 04-24-2003, 10:03 AM   #13
fancypiper
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Sparta, NC USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 5,141

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by luzi82
If the "rpm -U" is not good for mozilla for SOME REASONS...
how can I know the "rpm -U" do not have OTHER REASONS to crash the other packages...

=_= buggy buggy.....
In Linux, only the buggy program will be affected, not the others, unlike Windows where the underlying OS is buggy and makes it seem as if other software is buggy as well. At least, bugs are very localized in Linux and easily fixed once you learn how to use the system.

I have never liked just the plain vanilla rpm package manager that comes with Redhat. Red Carpet and apt4rpm do a pretty good job, but I have still found bad packages in Red Carpet (but none in apt4rpm yet).

If you will stay a few months behind the latest releases (except for security, of course), you will have more stable packages built. If you like using the bleeding edge, get used to using bugzilla and help out with fixing the bugs.
 
Old 04-24-2003, 10:08 AM   #14
fancypiper
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Sparta, NC USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 5,141

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally posted by luzi82
.............
after reading your link I realize one thing which M$ is true........

M$ said:
" the cost of maintainment on linux is higher than windows.... "
Methinks you misunderstand or are brainwashed by Microsoft propaganda.

Read some specifics of companies who have switched and their associated IT costs. Ask about network uptime (big timewaster in Windows) and productivity gains after switching.

Lots of people just can't believe that something free is better than something that costs a lot, so they hesitate...
 
Old 04-24-2003, 11:30 AM   #15
busbarn
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO US
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 453

Rep: Reputation: 30
gentoo.org
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apache or no-ip config not reliable? merlin740 Linux - Networking 7 12-31-2004 11:56 PM
How reliable are ........ phatbastard Linux - Security 1 12-13-2004 11:30 PM
How reliable is chkrootkit?? jimdaworm Linux - Security 7 10-18-2004 06:51 AM
IS Badblock utility reliable? zulfilee Linux - General 3 09-27-2004 01:41 AM
Reliable Backup Software? Breezwell Linux - Networking 1 03-06-2002 06:12 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration