Interesting message from Keith ...
What Keith has done here is list the advantages of Debian over Redhat. I agree
with every point he has listed. RH is great, providing you want to follow
their rules. I know a lot of people who don't run X, they don't need it.
Do we really want Debian just
How about suggesting some improvements, rather than I don't like the
Debian install?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I find deselect as the only problem with debian. The update section
really needs work.
Actually, I'd say the `Access' and `Select' screens need work, especially
Select.
Now I
Robert V. MacQuarrie wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, ivan wrote:
IMHO, the reason RH leads is because they are a fully fledged commercial
dist. which attracts media attention and advertising.
This is completely true and unfortune for Debian right now.
SNIP
Is it, though? I always thought of
How about suggesting some improvements, rather than I don't like the
Debian install?
The people I've talked to mention that RedHat's install is more of a one
screen, ask one question mode. Debian's (at least the last time I did a full
install) used a more complicated screen layout. Newbies
Kent West wrote:
To sum up: 1) better help screens in base install, 2) better help screens
in pppconfig, 3) a no-fuss minimal X install that any idiot can get going.
Coming from the standpoint of someone who isn't an IT professional and an
admitted pc
novice and Linux idiot; I'd like to
From what I've heard so far, something in-between linux kernel
configuration (menuconfig, xconfig) and a Win95's Wizards like
interface is what is primarily wanted from new-to-linux guys?
Christian
I thought I would input my couple of pence worth to this
discussion. I am very much a Linux newbie but I am not exactly
an idiot when it comes to computers. I have been using computers
for 10 years going back to my humble XT.
I have recently installed RH5.1, SuSE 5.3 and Deb 2.0 and I
would
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Randy Edwards wrote:
I think overall we could eliminate a *lot* of the prompts in an install
just by making assumptions. Perhaps a two-mode install should be used: expert
and novice mode. Ask the expert everything, let them have full power.
you could easily go even
you could easily go even farther than that? OK, this might be
impractical, but it sounds easy...
Each step could be assigned (internally) a ranking according to user
knowledge: 1 = what's a computer ---to--- 10 = Linus
at the beginning of the install, you rank yourself. Then, for each
What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
out for the initial install.
Maybe people like the RH install
If an F1 motor was put into a mini-van body would it be any less powerful
or more difficult to actually start ?
It would be a complete disaster. Yes it would be a pain to start, the clutch
would melt and the flywheel would go into orbit around mars.
Maybe a better analogy would be replacing
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, William Schwartz wrote:
-- snip
When i tested Redhat this was one of the most definitive turn offs.
One needed to have X11 up and running to have access to a rather
strange package management frontend. Actually dselect is terrible
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Richard Lyon wrote:
What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
out for the initial install.
Keith G. Murphy wrote:
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
Actually it's not that Debian is built to be hard to use.
It's just that many of the 'pretty' system control and configure
applications supplied by RH are not in Debian. (Besides they only work
in X)
As someone who has recently come to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:06:51 - (GMT), Pollywog wrote:
Well, hell, if that is all it takes to be full up to speed I can
claim, with confidence, that I've had two Debian installs up on the net in
under 15 minutes. Mind you, that was just the
Paul Seelig wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash on
advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's inherantly
free-er nature, and techincal superiority
Redhat is a distribution geared at ease
Pollywog wrote:
Several people have told me that as newbies (first time install) they got
RedHat up and on the net in 15 minutes, but I don't believe any of them.
--
Andrew
I recently installed RH just to see what the big deal was about. I was
totally offended by the hands-off install.
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
Debian.
Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
and Debian's installation is still pure stone age. Well, i
I'm sure you did the right thing !
IMHO, the reason RH leads is because they are a fully fledged commercial
dist. which attracts media attention and advertising.
The more attention and advertising, the more CD's are purchased and so
popularity apparently increases which attracts more media
If an F1 motor was put into a mini-van body would it be any less powerful
or more difficult to actually start ?
I think the air-conditioners relate far more to a permanent GUI like
Windows which does suck the power the from the motor. If I understand
correctly this is not what is being proposed.
Paul Seelig wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash
on
advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's
inherantly
free-er nature, and techincal superiority
Redhat is a distribution geared at
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ben Messinger wrote:
Pollywog wrote:
Several people have told me that as newbies (first time install) they got
RedHat up and on the net in 15 minutes, but I don't believe any of them.
--
Andrew
I recently installed RH just to see what the big deal was about.
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
Actually it's not that Debian is built to be hard to use.
It's just that many of the 'pretty' system control and configure
applications supplied by RH are not in Debian. (Besides they only work
in X)
As someone who has recently come to use Debian from a year or two of
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
As someone who has recently come to use Debian from a year or two of
RedHat experience, I can say that the non-X-based nature of dselect can
be a distinct advantage when you're trying to configure a server machine
and if the dselect process shuts
Subject: RE: slashdot poll
Date: Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 12:13:30AM +
In reply to:M.C. Vernon
Quoting M.C. Vernon([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
Debian.
Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
and Debian's
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
out for the initial install.
Bruno Boettcher writes:
I never looked into vt-controls through perl, is there a way to make this
nice bluered fullscreen windows with perl?
whiptail.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse
Kent West writes:
Other than better help screens in the existing base install, the help
screens in the pppconfig setup could be improved also.
Could you make specific suggestions? preferably by filing a bug report
against pppconfig.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
Second place is taking a beating? I don't think so. Yes, I voted.
-Ian
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
of distributions. Have you all voted?
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/
--
Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
| of distributions. Have you all voted?
A beating? Second place? Seems pretty good to me. True, it trails
RedHat by a significant margin but I don't think that's really
surprising. Just reading
On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
of distributions. Have you all voted?
Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things about the
distro.
--
Andrew
Pollywog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
|
| Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
| of distributions. Have you all voted?
|
| Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things
| about the distro.
You won't be sorry. I've
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Pollywog wrote:
On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
of distributions. Have you all voted?
Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things about the
distro.
RH is a commercially-based
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash on
advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's inherantly
free-er nature, and techincal superiority
Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Linus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:57:39 +0100 (MET), Paul Seelig wrote:
Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Linus
himself uses Redhat and not Debian.
Debian, IMHO, is easy to use. Very easy to use. From what I've heard
RedHat is
Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
A beating? Second place? Seems pretty good to me. True, it trails
RedHat by a significant margin but I don't think that's really
surprising. Just reading comp.os.linux.misc leads you to the
conclusion that RedHat is the most popular distribution.
Well, yes, but keep in
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:57:39 +0100 (MET), Paul Seelig wrote:
Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Linus
himself uses Redhat and not Debian.
Debian, IMHO, is easy to use. Very easy to use. From what I've heard
RedHat is harder to use.
From what I've seen on this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoie wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
Debian.
A liar, for sure since a
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
Debian.
Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
and Debian's installation
DISCLAIMER: I never used any other distribution than Debian. All what I say
about others is gathered from the many things I've read about those dists.
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install
Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed
On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoie wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 21:33:10 - (GMT), Pollywog wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
Debian.
A liar, for sure since a
On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
Well, hell, if that is all it takes to be full up to speed I can
claim, with confidence, that I've had two Debian installs up on the net in
under 15 minutes. Mind you, that was just the base install of 8 disks, but
it was up on the net. :)
Yes, but was
: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: slashdot poll
On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoie wrote:
Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat
in
less than 15
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, William Schwartz wrote:
I also after playing with Debian for a week tried Red-Hat.
The install went very well, but that was all I ever got done... I did not
know how to get other packages installed and such. I was stuck with a
system that was empty. It had almost nothing
On 09-Feb-99 William Schwartz wrote:
I really hate to continue this thread, but I thought I'd throw in my
experience. I was turned on to Linux by a friend, and he was using Debian,
so I installed it and tried it. About 2 days later I had a working Debian
system. Mind you I was a COMPLETE Unix
I think the distribution holy wars are irrelevant and a waste of
time. The best distribution should be based on personal
preference.
The real concern should be maintaining compatability across _all_
Linux distributions. In other words, if I can compile and run my
program on the Red Hat
48 matches
Mail list logo
