On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 at 18:56 -0700, Dave Smith wrote: > Yes, comparing a 5-year old release to a 5-week old one is not fair in > my view.
I was in a hurry or I would have added that caveat. I had thought of it. And yes, it is to be expected. However, the very fact that there _is_ a 5-week old release of something like ubuntu is something to be proud of. Many people still slap on windows 2000, although I agree XP is more common nowdays. _However_, this laptop is older. It came with Windows 98, and so Windows 2000 was newer than the laptop or at least contemporary. I wouldn't dream of XP on it because XP would be too slow. So when the newer release doesn't run on the hardware because it's too bloated and the older release has no excuse for lacking hardware support, I don't think we need to cut too much slack. In any case, my point was that we are now at least to the point windows was 5 years ago. 5 years ago many people would have laughed at the very idea. -- .O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est. ..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach --------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
