> If you think Debian has a tremendous amount of software, you should try > sunsite.unc.edu or tsx-11.mit.edu sometime.
Look how much Debian has compared to Slackware or RedHat, though. All of it integrated with the Debian package manager. > I'm seriously thinking of going back to slackware. I've searched > ftp.debian.org for bash 2.0, the 2.1.x kernel, and other recent software, Ummm, why would you expect an operating system to come with an EXPERIMENTAL and UNSTABLE kernel? If Debian would ship with 2.1.x, I'd really dislike it. But the kernel-package works fine with 2.1.x. Just download it. Or you can do it like you always did with Slackware -- the "hard way". but they're nowhere to be found. I just found out that my Debian system > compiled Linux 2.1.21 with the 2.0.27 kernel headers because someone You probably didn't use the kernel-package then. If you want to do it manually, fine, but like any other system, you need to make sure you know what you're doing. Let the package system work for you -- don't be constantly trying to subvert it. > thought it was a good idea to fuck with the Linux kernel and libc. I > have no idea whose idea it was split every library into two (or more!) > packages, either. This is ridiculous. Under Slackware, when I want There is no reason for somebody that just needs to run a program that requires, for insance, Tcl, Tk, SLANG, XView, etc. to have the full development binaries. It is a waste of disk space. Besides, how hard is it to hit + twice instead of once in dselect if you want the developer's version of the package? > S-LANG, I go to S-LANG home page and ftp it, compile it, and install it. > Debian gives me several packages to choose from, which, it turns out, are > all required. Then I find out that the guy who compiled it did something > weird. Lynx 2.6 doesn't compile with it. So, I go to the S-LANG home > page and get the real source and compile it. Lynx compiles fine. Why > was I recompiling Lynx? Because the guy who compiled that screwed it > up! My God, I've recompiled half the Debian packages, it seems like. > All this effort could have gone towards making my old Slackware system > more usuable than my current Debian system! Please elaborate here. Lynx works fine on my machine. So does SLANG, SLRN (uses Slang), most (also uses slang), etc. > > I don't know. Maybe I'm just not in the correct mindset for Debian. I > like to run the latest stuff. Debian offers, it seems, only the oldest, > most stable software. I just don't see why anyone would run Linux and Really. Please take another look. One of the main reasons I picked Debian instead of RedHat or Slackware was that Debian had the most current software. When I installed it, Debian had kernel 2.0 while Slackware was stuck at 1.2.13. Today, Redhat has 2.0.18, Slackware 2.0.0, and Debian has 2.0.27. (Actually, this was current as of December.) Gee, Slackware really is on the bleeding edge.... <sarcasm> > not want to compile software, be on bleeding edge, and actually > administer a UNIX system... I feel like I'm running Windows 95. > Unconfigurable software with horrid defaults, plain bad planning, > changing industry standards without notice, etc. You make lots of accusations without mentioning any specific instance. Unless you elaborate with examples, you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously. What software isn't configurable??? Debian has Sendmail available just like anyone else. You can make your own cf file just like anyone else. You are familiar with the concept of the /etc directory, aren't you??? -- John Goerzen | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org) Custom Programming | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
