On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Maybe I should have read the descriptions before claiming anything. But
>Sure, you should have - but by not doing so, you just showed how "newbies"
>would approach this. Mind you, I'm not calling you a newbie - I don't know
I don't mind because I have found out that even experts tend to do the
same. Nobody reads the manual. It will always be a fact.
>who you are and what your experience is, but it just happens so, that
>newbies would also use this (non-)approach (I assume).
But now as I start to think experts tend to think that Linux won't do
anything behind of your back. They have been installed the packages
from the source tarballs for years and by doing so they've had a
perfect touch of the system. For the same reasons the only window
manager they're used is fvwm.
Now they install the new Mandrake which seems to install everything
they don't want to install. And like that would have been not enough
it also starts all the unneeded daemons. So after five minutes using
the new system he says that it's way too bloaded and begin to have
wet dreams of having Debian (and apt-get).
Even those not so old fashioned are used to know what is installed
and which of the servers are running. They also go through all the
configuration files which are used by some of those servers _before_
starting them. I like Debian too (minimal installation + apt-get
whenever something useful is missing). But I wan't to be more
bleeding edge too, I wan't to have something fancy and new. Debian
is perfect for the servers, but if you are using the computer also
as a desktop, Mdk is just the best choice this time. But as power
user I wan't to have more flexibility in the installation process
without having to go through >2000 packages by hand.
That gives me an idea. Why not to make a expandable tree (like in
Corel Draw's installation):
Desktop...
KDE...
Gnome...
Others...
Multimedia...
Programming...
General (C/C++)...
Other languages...
Assembly
Java
...
...
Server...
WWW server...
Apache
Apache php
Apache perl
...
Ftp server...
SSH server...
Others...
It's much more flexible to have for example three levels of choices
+ individual packet selection than having just one level + individual.
More levels is too much and even this structure should be kept quite
abstract. So this would become some kind of individual field selection
where fields are guite general and contain many packages. The normal
user needs only the first or two first levels. And the power user has
his customizing options (without having to select every individual
package by himself).
>> flaws in it too. It seems to be unstable, because of too many services
>Can't say that it is unstable for me.
It's not unstable for me either, now that I have configured everything.
>> In this case Windows may be unable to find the letter F: until those
>> linux partiotions are deleted and changed to be as hda3 and hda4.
>Hmm, might be that hda6 and hda7 are created with partition type 85. Try to
>change this to 81 and everything should be fine (I guess - I don't "use"
>Windows, so I can't try)
I don't use Windows either. Haven't been using it for years. But it
was my father's computer with Windows ME preinstalled. I didn't have
much time to install the Mdk 7.2 so I thought that I'll take a normal
(not expert) installation. So it made the partiotions automatically
(without giving me the choice to use the primary partitions).
The extended partiotion type was 5 (if I remember it right).
Regards,
Matias
