@Mercury305: Red Hat is certainly more complex. Have you looked at rpm's packaging tools? Some .spec files are insane. Also Red Hat still prefers its own configuration tools over configuring the system via text files. Additionally it is Red Hat who introduce stuff like systemd (Fedora is really a testing ground for the next Red Hat version).
All that said, it is irrelevant. If you end up applying for a job where the company runs Red Hat, you are gonna have to learn Red Hat. |
Quote:
Why don't you just run some or all of these OSes on your system and learn the whole lot? Create a few virtual machines and put them on a virtual network and SSH or VNC or RDP or XDMCP into them and learn the lot. And if you don't have hardware virtualization support in your CPU/motherboard just run Xen, which will allow you to run paravirtualised machines at near-native speed without a virtualization-friendly CPU in sight. With something like TightVNC on these machines you don't even need X running on them - just on the host. A week of intensive learning with KVM or Xen will stand you in good stead and more importantly allow you to bury these futile dilemmas where they belong in 2012. In all likelihood you have hardware in front of you that's capable of running multiple OSes simultaneously. Use it. |
Quote:
"Learning Linux" is like learning to drive a car or a motorcycle. You don't learn to drive one single model, you just have to know your way around all of them. With motorcycles, you'll even notice that when you have driven two dozen of very different models (from enduro to hypersports) you'll learn something from every single specific bike you drive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
1) There is no universally admitted definition of what "complexity" means. 2) So between two things two people could easily disagree about which one is more complex. Let me apply to complexity what Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull said about competence in The Peter Principle: "Complexity, as well as beauty and contact lenses, lies in the eye of the observer." Other than that I fully agree with what ruario and TobiSGD wrote, I am only sad that my English language level don't allow me to state it as clearly as they did. |
Quote:
P.S. You can drop the condescending "Something that happens when you get older" comments. I read your intro and I am older than you. |
Quote:
rpm/yum, dpkg/aptitude, pkgtools/slackpkg are not "better" or "less good". Just different approaches. Learn to use them all, then compare. PS : of course, YMMV. Advice coming from the guy who read the Slackbook on his honeymoon back in 2005. |
Quote:
Anyways I have to go I liked your other response and will read it when I have the time. Thanks. |
Quote:
|
To answer the question in the thread title - for me, Slack's not difficult to use since I don't really have to do much, if anything, to keep it working. Everything works. It's not complex to set up. In fact, it's installer is easy-peasy and setting up wireless is really simple too.
Perhaps you might best be served by trying different distros. See which you prefer. There's a wealth of choice out there. Learn bash scripting or some Python and make some tools for yourself. Learn about permissions and how to fix permissions problems if they get messed up. IN a way it doesn't matter which distro you use to learn that stuff; the important thing is making the right choices in what you learn and how you go about learning. Read the rute book and the slackbook. What is better - driving lessons or the colour yellow? Your choice. |
Quote:
If you think six books are too much, consider that a sysadmin spends probably most of his time reading documentation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 PM. |