On 02/11/10 11:32, Sean Gibbins wrote: > On 02/11/10 08:45, Natalie Hooper wrote: >> I'd like to know your thoughts about this, what you agree/disagree with, >> what you would add etc. > Hi Natalie, > > See comment number two!
And also copied here: 3 is an application issue, not a Linux issue. 4 is an Ubuntu issue, not a Linux issue. 5 New kernels are installed rather than upgraded, to prevent an upgraded kernel rendering your machine unbootable. What you are seeing are previous kernels which may or may not be redundant in your case. You can uninstall them. Also, you don’t need to see the different kernels and options at boot time – there is almost certainly a way of hiding them. 6 Many Linux users want to use the CLI, or a combination of CLI and GUI; it seems a little unfair to mandate that they should have to dig for it because you are uncomfortable with its presence. 9 You can search the text relating to packages in Synaptic too… 8 You have a point there Natalie, but I think it’s a stretch to expect the producers of a highly versatile and configurable system like Linux to anticipate every user’s customisation/tinkering. If your desktop environment is that critical to you that you cannot afford downtime, then you need to run a second system and test before you perform the dist-upgrade (or equivalent), to anticipate potential problems. Alternatively consider a rolling-release system like Arch Linux of Gentoo where there are no distribution upgrades as such. 10 Again, there’s nothing wrong with choice. I’m pretty easy with whatever desktop you put in front of me, but there are those with strong preferences. When you start mandating one desktop you are starting to look like the proprietary alternatives, which most users have elected to avoid. -- music, film, comics, books, rants and drivel: www.funkygibbins.me.uk -- Next meeting: Crown Hotel, Blandford Forum, Tuesday 2010-11-02 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
