2012/4/13 मःसागरः <[email protected]>: > basically system installation leaves you in a lurch if you choose LILO > instead of GRUB as a boot loader, + there are many more issues e.g.
Any specific reason for you to chose LILO over grub? > networking configuration / status indication is not as clean as I have > seen in Mandriva and then Mageia... How is it different? I guess all of them would be using network manager. But KDE would be doing it differently than GNOME. > openSUSE is a good suggestion, that I would definitely won't mind trying... > > The whole of debian is their own way discourages KDE... and making > everything work smoothly for GNOME, which to me looks like an unfair > game! So to avoid blaming debian contributors I accept as shortcoming > of my choice i.e. KDE... No, debian does not discourage KDE. There is a separate installation disk that installs KDE by default. Try that. debian-6.0.4-i386-kde-CD-1.iso at http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.4/i386/iso-cd/ it is just alphabetical listing of files by apache and no debian fault in showing it below gnome :) There is no unfair game here, it may just be that there is not enough contributors working on KDE. In my experience KDE team is much better than GNOME team (KDE team gets new releases faster than GNOME, KDE releases are better coordinated and they come in one go, where as GNOME upgrades are broken most of the time and takes longer). -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. _______________________________________ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
