> > How about suggesting some improvements, rather than "I don't like the
> > Debian install"?
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I find deselect as the only problem with debian. The update section
> really needs work.
Actually, I'd say the `Access' and `Select' screens need work, especially
Select.
>
< Interesting message from Keith ... >
What Keith has done here is list the advantages of Debian over Redhat. I agree
with every point he has listed. RH is great, providing you want to follow
their rules. I know a lot of people who don't run X, they don't need it.
Do we really want Debian just
Keith G. Murphy wrote:
>
> Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> > Actually it's not that Debian is built to be hard to use.
> > It's just that many of the 'pretty' system control and configure
> > applications supplied by RH are not in Debian. (Besides they only work
> > in X)
> As someone who has recently co
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Richard Lyon wrote:
>> What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
>> install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
>> packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
>> out for the initial install.
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, William Schwartz wrote:
>-- snip
> When i tested Redhat this was one of the most definitive turn offs.
> One needed to have X11 up and running to have access to a rather
> strange package management frontend. Actually dselect is terri
> If an F1 motor was put into a mini-van body would it be any less powerful
> or more difficult to actually start ?
>
It would be a complete disaster. Yes it would be a pain to start, the clutch
would melt and the flywheel would go into orbit around mars.
Maybe a better analogy would be replaci
> What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
> install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
> packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
> out for the initial install.
>
Maybe people like the RH install b
> you could easily go even farther than that? OK, this might be
> impractical, but it sounds easy...
>
> Each step could be assigned (internally) a ranking according to user
> knowledge: 1 = what's a computer ---to--- 10 = Linus
>
> at the beginning of the install, you rank yourself. Then, fo
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Randy Edwards wrote:
>
> I think overall we could eliminate a *lot* of the prompts in an install
>just by making assumptions. Perhaps a two-mode install should be used: expert
>and novice mode. Ask the expert everything, let them have full power.
you could easily go even f
I thought I would input my couple of pence worth to this
discussion. I am very much a Linux newbie but I am not exactly
an idiot when it comes to computers. I have been using computers
for 10 years going back to my humble XT.
I have recently installed RH5.1, SuSE 5.3 and Deb 2.0 and I
would lik
>From what I've heard so far, something in-between linux kernel
configuration (menuconfig, xconfig) and a Win95's Wizards like
interface is what is primarily wanted from new-to-linux guys?
Christian
Kent West wrote:
>
>
> To sum up: 1) better help screens in base install, 2) better help screens
> in pppconfig, 3) a no-fuss minimal X install that any idiot can get going.
Coming from the standpoint of someone who isn't an IT professional and an
admitted pc
novice and Linux idiot; I'd like t
> How about suggesting some improvements, rather than "I don't like the
> Debian install"?
The people I've talked to mention that RedHat's install is more of a "one
screen, ask one question" mode. Debian's (at least the last time I did a full
install) used a more complicated screen layout. Ne
"Robert V. MacQuarrie" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, ivan wrote:
> >IMHO, the reason RH leads is because they are a fully fledged commercial
> >dist. which attracts media attention and advertising.
>
> This is completely true and unfortune for Debian right now.
Is it, though? I always thought
Kent West writes:
> Other than better help screens in the existing base install, the help
> screens in the pppconfig setup could be improved also.
Could you make specific suggestions? preferably by filing a bug report
against pppconfig.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Hors
Bruno Boettcher writes:
> I never looked into vt-controls through perl, is there a way to make this
> nice blue&red fullscreen windows with perl?
whiptail.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Hors
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> What do people like about RH? Is it worth trying to nick parts of their
> install? I found it a pain - It wouldn't let me just install individual
> packages, though I wonder whether some of the modconf stuff could be left
> out for the initial install.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > > Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
> > > less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
> > > Debian.
> > >
> > Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
> >
Subject: RE: slashdot poll
Date: Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 12:13:30AM +
In reply to:M.C. Vernon
Quoting M.C. Vernon([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>
> > > Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
> > > less than 15 minutes.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> As someone who has recently come to use Debian from a year or two of
> RedHat experience, I can say that the non-X-based nature of dselect can
> be a distinct advantage when you're trying to configure a server machine
and if the dselect process shuts d
Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Actually it's not that Debian is built to be hard to use.
> It's just that many of the 'pretty' system control and configure
> applications supplied by RH are not in Debian. (Besides they only work
> in X)
As someone who has recently come to use Debian from a year or two
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ben Messinger wrote:
> Pollywog wrote:
>
> > Several people have told me that as newbies (first time install) they got
> > RedHat up and on the net in 15 minutes, but I don't believe any of them.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew
>
> I recently installed RH just to see what the big dea
Paul Seelig wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash
on
> > advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's
inherantly
> > "free-er" nature, and techincal superiority
> >
> Redhat is a distribution
If an F1 motor was put into a mini-van body would it be any less powerful
or more difficult to actually start ?
I think the air-conditioners relate far more to a permanent GUI like
Windows which does suck the power the from the motor. If I understand
correctly this is not what is being proposed.
I'm sure you did the right thing !
IMHO, the reason RH leads is because they are a fully fledged commercial
dist. which attracts media attention and advertising.
The more attention and advertising, the more CD's are purchased and so
popularity apparently increases which attracts more media atten
> > Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
> > less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
> > Debian.
> >
> Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
> and Debian's installation is still pure stone age. Wel
Pollywog wrote:
> Several people have told me that as newbies (first time install) they got
> RedHat up and on the net in 15 minutes, but I don't believe any of them.
>
> --
> Andrew
I recently installed RH just to see what the big deal was about. I was
totally offended by the hands-off install
Paul Seelig wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash on
> > advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's inherantly
> > "free-er" nature, and techincal superiority
> >
> Redhat is a distribution g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:06:51 - (GMT), Pollywog wrote:
>> Well, hell, if that is all it takes to be "full up to speed" I can
>> claim, with confidence, that I've had two Debian installs up on the net in
>> under 15 minutes. Mind you, that was j
I think the distribution holy wars are irrelevant and a waste of
time. The "best" distribution should be based on personal
preference.
The real concern should be maintaining compatability across _all_
Linux distributions. In other words, if I can compile and run my
program on the Red Hat distri
On 09-Feb-99 William Schwartz wrote:
> I really hate to continue this thread, but I thought I'd throw in my
> experience. I was "turned on" to Linux by a friend, and he was using Debian,
> so I installed it and tried it. About 2 days later I had a working Debian
> system. Mind you I was a COMPLETE
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, William Schwartz wrote:
> I also after playing with Debian for a week tried Red-Hat.
> The install went very well, but that was all I ever got done... I did not
> know how to get other "packages" installed and such. I was stuck with a
> "system" that was empty. It had almost no
l Message -
From: Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: slashdot poll
>
>On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoi
On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> Well, hell, if that is all it takes to be "full up to speed" I can
> claim, with confidence, that I've had two Debian installs up on the net in
> under 15 minutes. Mind you, that was just the base install of 8 disks, but
> it was up on the net. :)
Yes, bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 21:33:10 - (GMT), Pollywog wrote:
>>>Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
>>>less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
>>>Debian.
>> A liar, for sure sin
On 09-Feb-99 Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoie wrote:
>
>>Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
>>less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed wit
DISCLAIMER: I never used any other distribution than Debian. All what I say
about others is gathered from the many things I've read about those dists.
> >Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install
> Red Hat in
> >less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that sp
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
> Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
> less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
> Debian.
>
Right. I've recently tried Redhat and SuSE on a separate partition
and Debian's installat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:56:11 -0500, Christian Lavoie wrote:
>Debian's harder to install. One guy mentionned he could install Red Hat in
>less than 15 minutes. Hard to have something fully up at that speed with
>Debian.
A liar, for sure since a rea
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:57:39 +0100 (MET), Paul Seelig wrote:
>
> >Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Linus
> >himself uses Redhat and not Debian.
>
> Debian, IMHO, is easy to use. Very easy to use. From what I've heard
> RedHat is harder to use.
>From what I've seen
Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
> A beating? Second place? Seems pretty good to me. True, it trails
> RedHat by a significant margin but I don't think that's really
> surprising. Just reading comp.os.linux.misc leads you to the
> conclusion that RedHat is the most popular distribution.
Well, yes, but keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:57:39 +0100 (MET), Paul Seelig wrote:
>Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Linus
>himself uses Redhat and not Debian.
Debian, IMHO, is easy to use. Very easy to use. From what I've heard
RedHat is ha
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> RH is a commercially-based distro, so they can spend loads of cash on
> advertising etc, so they are the most popular, despite Debian's inherantly
> "free-er" nature, and techincal superiority
>
Redhat is a distribution geared at ease of use. That's why Li
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Pollywog wrote:
>
> On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
> > of distributions. Have you all voted?
>
> Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things about the
> distro.
RH is a commercial
Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
| >
| > Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
| > of distributions. Have you all voted?
|
| Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things
| about the distro.
You won't be sorry. I
On 09-Feb-99 Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
> of distributions. Have you all voted?
Why is that? I just ordered a copy because I have heard good things about the
distro.
--
Andrew
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
| of distributions. Have you all voted?
A beating? Second place? Seems pretty good to me. True, it trails
RedHat by a significant margin but I don't think that's really
surprising. Just reading c
Second place is taking a beating? I don't think so. Yes, I voted.
-Ian
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Debian seems to be taking a beating on the recent /. poll
> of distributions. Have you all voted?
>
> .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
>
>
> --
> Unsu
48 matches
Mail list logo
