Re: Which Linux distribution for Fortran 95?

From: Dr. Richard E. Hawkins (hawk_at_slytherin.ds.psu.edu)
Date: 05/22/04 

Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:05:14 +0000 (UTC)

In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-4137-7007-200405211358-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au>,
TimC <tconnors@no.astro.spam.swin.accepted.edu.here.au> wrote:
>Dr. Richard E. Hawkins (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely
>unlike tea:

>>>I am sorry to disagree. But I think debian's .deb files together with
>>>apt-get is much more useful and powerful than redhat's rpm -U, or rpm
>>>-i. Personally I used redhat for abt 6 years and then shifted to Debian
>>>couple of years back and soon realized that RPM dependency is a hell.

>> But that's not what he said. Debian *doesn't* handle RPM's well,
>> whether or not .deb format is superior.

>It'd be better if vendors made the trouble to make .debs -- if they
>have already made the rpms, then they have the infrastructure to make
>.debs, since they do much the same thing.

That would be nice, but you're back to the "very small subset" problem
again.

>There is also much less
>complication in the .deb world, since all .debs work on all
>distributions using dpkg (lindows, knoppix, etc), yet there are so
>many differnt versions of rpm, and you can't generally trivially mix
>an rpm destined for one distrib onto another distrib (it works in some
>cases by pure luck - and the FHS doesn't help you when it comes to the
>mess rpm V3 vs V4 etc creates). I'm guessing the intel supplied rpms
>only work on maybe redhat and SuSE?

They work nicely on FreeBSD, save for the debugger & threading not being
possible, and the corruption of the message file.

>>>Ofcourse it is a personal preference. But I would like to hear opinions
>>>from people who have used both (rpm based distros and debian)...

>> As with many other people, Debian was my final linux distribution.

>> Then, like so many others, I switched to FreeBSD :)

>I got me an old diskless sparcstation for my bedroom, and the comments
>on installation were along the lines of "NetBSD is trivial to setup a
>diskless client, using any flavour Unix server you want, but of course
>Linux makes this a lot harder". I still persevered - I know Linux
>well, I know the BSD's not (and I prefer to use GNUised tools to
>traditional BSD UNIX tools).

Yikes. Every time I've found a difference, I've preferred the bsd way.

>I've got everything but xdm working now -
>the server is refusing to answer for some bizaare reason (I modified 3
>config files and slaughtered two chickens, but still no luck).

Try two squirrels and a freshman.

A few dusty neurons are insisting that there is something peculiar about
debian & xdm. I don't remember any details, but remember a long fight
with it involving debian with redhat and OSF.

hawk 

-- 
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
dochawk@psu.edu  111 Hiller (814) 375-4846      \ /   against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of              X    and postings. 
Penn State until it pays my retainer.           / \

Relevant Pages