On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:27:38 you wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Ryan McCoskrie > > <ryan.mccosk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay there have been a few misunderstandings about what I meant in my > > original post on this thread. After some thinking I believe that I can > > clarify myself properly > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:02:30 you wrote: > >> Are there any desktop centered distros whose primary aim is to have as > >> few surprises as possible for people who are already accustomed to > >> Linux? > > > > By accustomed to Linux I mean that this user is more comfortable with > > Linux than any other system but not necessarily a power user. > > > >> I just want a very generic distro. > > > > By generic I don't just mean desktop centered with no paradigm shifting > > technologies. I mean a system that aims to have as few original > > contributions as possible > > what do you mean "as few original contributions as possible" - do you > mean you want a distro without any special tools that are designed > just for that distro, by the distro maker? > AFAIK that is near impossible without simply repackaging something else (such as the case with CentOS and Redhat). But yeah as few non-universal features as possible and absolutely nothing set up in a unique or near unique way.
I suppose the real reason I want a system like what I am trying to describe is so that we can point and say "Well there is no standard Linux but that one works exactly how any junior admin would expect". > If so, ubuntu won't do you as they innovate quite a bit, as does > fedora, as does suse. That comes of having a bunch of paid > developers[1] sitting there developing, innovating and differentiating > their distros. And at times their developments get taken up by other > distros. eg REDHAT package manager is used by a lot of distros besides > Redhat, upstart was developed by Canonical but is now also used by > Fedora and others. > > If you want a very generic system with no distro centered addons then > you perhaps don't want a distro at all, because they all try to > differentiate themselves in some way with some new 'feature'. > > If I still misunderstood what you are after then please explain again. > > > and have a complete out-of-the-box set of programs (GUI and CLI) > > that one would expect out of a Linux based system. > > > > P.S: I know that you can set a root password on Ubuntu but I seam to > > remember other things being dropped because they're of no use to granny. > > You don't need a root password. Ubuntu proves that. > You do if you have a neurotic need to configure every detail but lack the time and bandwidth for Gentoo/Slackware/LFS. > > P.P.S: We're lucky here but there is still need for DVD based systems for > > those without broadband. I was running Fedora without internet any > > connection at all from mid 2006 to the start of 2008. > > [1] OK so fedora's paid developers really work for redhat.
