> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Bigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EUG-LUG:493] Re: naive distro questions > > > A good list. I like it.
thanks. i made it myself. :) <snippage> > I know you aren't looking for excuses, but... > > The best I think anyone can say here is that all the > distributions seem > sincere in making this happen RSN. A stumbling block is the problem > you encountered when considering doing you own FSH. Lot's of scripts > and apps that have hard coded paths. Flushing out the side > effects of > moving both data and code is taking a lot of time. In the meantime > legacy directorys and/or symlinks get around most of the problems (I > know you don't want this "noise" in your system -- I hope > things clean > up soon). symlinks would be just fine if they WORKED or were actually created! but they don't/aren't. i can't remember what the library was, but the designers changed it's directory structure between 8 and 8.2 (i installed 8.2, the program i was compiling wanted 8). i tried symlinking it myself, but that ultimately failed. <snip> > Often, assuming that you're using a Debian kernel with a standard > config, such problems may be due to apt-get only handling app > dependancies and something apt-get did would have worked better if it > had also handled "recommends" and/or "replaces" properly. But, even > with a standard Debian kernel in place, there a still apps > (like those > dependent on lm-sensors) that require you to modify the kernel, but > never mention it. > > I know, just more of why Debian isn't your first choice. debian isn't my first choice (anymore) because they're still "stuck in the 60's". for christ's (or whoever else you give props too...) sake, use a newer f**king kernel! i'm sure there's a reason for it, but i can't find it. 2.4.5 worked just fine on my firewall (P166) so i can't exactly see why age of system would be a problem. > > 3. for x, the distro should use gnome, not KDE. i have had a bad > > experience with KDE (basically, it doesn't work. at all.) > > Oddly, this is something that Debian excels at. i know. i like that about debian. <snip> > > Again, I've found Debian source dependancies to work well. Clearly, > Your Millage Has Varied. heh! debian source dependencies work fine. until you set apt to use the testing sources. then everything goes to hell. unfortunately, as said before, i am not "stuck in the 60's" and would like to use newer-edge programs than those from last year. maybe that's why i am having such a problem. but redhat was just fine with these newer versions. what's with debian? > > 6. above all, the distro's installer should actually work. it > > shouldn't forget important things like apt-utils (for debian) > > Wow. You got Debian to install without it including apt-utils!? kept happening with 2.2.4. i finally figured that one out and just alt-f2'd during install and apt-got it before continuing with the rest of the package install. little "fixes" like that really hack me off. > > that's what i want out of a distro. > > As I said, a good list, just what a user should expect. Ignoring the > FHS and Linux kernel requirements, BeOS came close, OS/2 and Geos > tried, and Windows doesn't really (people just tend to think anything > that goes wrong in Windows was their own fault). > > Keeping plugging and we'll get there. i suppose what i really need is a distro for the soul. one that let's you hack it to your heart's content, but doesn't require you to hack it just to get it WORKING... redhat ALMOST fit the bill. but i really just don't like the RPM system. and redhat had it's own problems.
