For instance, in caldera I could use webmin or an extension of the kde to configure what services to start or stop and when. I am testing out SuSE and I still can't get samba to startup automagically on reboot. (Something about xinetd that I still need to chase down..., or maybe figure out how to start webmin...)
I liked the binaries being compiled from the sources shipped. (Not as big an issue as it used to be.) And the testing that went into the whole package being stable running the apps that shipped with the product. I even liked the comercial apps that shipped with the product. And I still need a novell client. (That disappeared after eD 2.4)
FWIW
-- Alma
What was it about eD 2.4? Tina M Berendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:49:11 -0400
Given the recent interest in resurrecting and maintaining the old Caldera distro, I thought I'd take a minute to ask everyone to quantify what it was about eD (or eS) that was so great. Was it the file layout? The installer? The GUI tools? What? I used and loved eD, but find it hard to say why I felt it was so nice. I *think* a lot of my fondness has to do simply with familiarity... once I learned "the Caldera way" on OpenLinux, eD was such a natural progression that I think a lot of my 'it was so great' is simply because I *knew* it.. however, I now 'know' SuSE, but don't have the same warm fuzzy when talking about it as I do when talking about eD....
It seems to me that it would be a *lot* easier to start with a current base system (perhaps LFS based) and then mold it to be whatever it was about eD that everyone liked instead of taking an old eD and upgrading it (remember that eD wasn't even ready for 2.4.x and 2.6.x is right around the corner).
So, what *specifically* made eD so great?
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
