James and all following,
You seem to have missed the point Lauri made. We aren't
saying don't offer GUIs. We are saying please offer GUIs AND
offer command/script control capability. Then that baby user
can make his first steps AND we wannabe power users don't get
trapped in a pretty box of someone else's construction.
Larry
At 08:27 AM 10/07/1999 -0600, James Knowles wrote:
>> > Oh, please do tell why a graphical installer is a bad thing...
especially
>> > if it allows installation to a software RAID array.
>>
>> because it's bloat. 'plague from seattle' :)
>> Better reason is that any distribution which insists on installing GUI's is
>> quite useless when installing small boxes, routers etc.
>
>I think that the real issue here is the fact that Linux distributions
>are popping up to meet every need. There is great need for distros with
>non-GUI installs. However, IMHO it is insane to insist that those who
>are willing to put up with some "bloat" (compared to M$? What bloat?) to
>get a nice "friendly" GUI install should be barred from doing so, or
>even criticized. It does not reflect well on the Linux community.
>
>Don't criticize the GUI distros, be grateful that we have the choice to
>choose a distro that meets one's own needs.
>
>M$ trys to be a one-size-fits-all OS. Its downsides can largely be
>traced to that mentality. I love using Linux because I have a *choice*.
>I have a small machine that runs as a firewall/router. No GUI installs,
>please. For the workstations, a quick and drty GUI install is fine. I
>usually install most everything on the development machines; overhead
>for the GUI install is tiny in comparison. OTOH, some GUI installs fall
>over on my laptop. No choice there.
>
>This is why I use more than one distro -- I don't get hung up on one or
>the other. Choose the right tool for the job.
>
>We now return you to the regularly scheduled RAID discussions....
>
>James
>
>--
>Running NT is like listening to Kenny G with a kazoo.
>
