I read similar articles like this too. They are not really biased simply because they promote Redhat's Linux. The Debian system is a collection of high level puzzle pieces that an under-experienced user would have great difficulty using.
On the other hand, you have Redhat and Caldera with their user-friendly installs (more or less). The both have config progs for setting up dula-boot boot, X-windows, etc. Much like Windows 95/98. This is why ZDNet does not promote Debian. They don't see any value for someone other than a developer (or developer-like) individual. It's just too difficult for the average person to set up. If Debian wants to reach the same or similar populace, then it's mandatory that simpler installs and configurators be developed. But then, you have volunteers develping Debian. Doing it in their spare time. It will take longer. Others have salaried employees. It makes a difference. It did with me. I'm now taking a course in Linux. It's the only way I can learn it. Dos, Windows, Assembler, AppleDos, etc are all self -intuitive. Linux is not. Any other input? Ed -----Original Message----- From: George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org <debian-user@lists.debian.org> Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 04:45 Subject: I can't believe this > >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/opensource/390823.html > >zdnet did a review of Debian. Included are such comments as: > >Debian GNU/Linux 2.0 ($38.95 direct) ... >...Windows users should steer clear of Debian. > >...The company says it will include a new application installer in Debian >GNU/Linux 2.1. > >Uhm, which "company" would this be? > >...Debian is distributed by Linux Press... > >Yeah, and a whole bunch of other people. Basicly the article's slant is >be afraid of Debian, be very afraid. > > > > > > > > >-- >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null >