howard schwartz wrote: > > It was never intended for single, private user use and therefore > will probably always contain a lot of stuff ordinary PC users will > never use, or even know is there - if they are lucky.
There is no "it". Linux is not one thing. It comes in a variety of flavours and sizes. There are tiny embedded Linuxes that contain next to nothing. There are gigantic Linuxes that come on 5 CDs and contain the kitchen sink. If you want to complain about RedHat, that's fine. If you want to complain about the Linux on your next-door-neighbor's PC, that's fine. But you can't blame Linux. Linux is what you make it. You want a single, private user Linux -- done! BasicLinux has only one user, no servers, no permissions to worry about, no bulging directories of unnecessary software. You don't like logging in? OK, I'll tell you how to bypass it. You don't want to switch to alternate consoles by pressing ALT-Fn? OK, I'll tell you how to turn that off. (A stupid idea, but it's your Linux, you can do what you want). > I do not know of a good efficient OS on the horizon at this > point, designed just for the individual PC users, There are over a hundred different Linux distributions available. Surely one of them will give you what you want. > without extras he/she does not need. Funny thing about those extras. Something that seems useless today turns out to be essential tomorrow. When I got my first MSDOS computer, I thought intersvr/interlnk was a stupid waste of space. I'd just paid an enormous sum of money to buy one computer. Only a lunatic would buy two. However, just a few years later, I acquired a (cheap) second computer and discovered that interlnk/intersvr was *extremely* useful. Cheers, Steven
