Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Mike MacCana
Jeff, I'm a little dissappointed: I was hoping to chat with a cool guy who
does interesting stuff you about the similar major attributes of the
distributions
blah blah passive aggressive blah blah
Actually I was being serious. And trying to be pleasant. Just cause the
other guy wants to have an argument with you doesn't mean I do. If I was
being aggressive, I'd be more of the active kind.
Be nice. I am. :^)
rather than get into a pissing contest about how many disks are required.
Where pissing contest for you and Matt may mean ignore point, repeat. I
pointed out a point of difference (which didn't seem to be understood).
I understand your wanting to have the packages for a server install
that's not minimal on the first disc, I have responded with the fact
that not filling the first disc allows RH to add errata and drivers to
the install program, which is useful. Some people want a lot of software
on CD. That way they can carry it round with them (personally I think
the world needs DVD burners). But when updates come out, they don't want
their however many ISOS to suddenly become useless.
Ubuntu doesn't do CD re-releases (so far),
and if we did, it'd still be...
one CD. *da-da*! :-)
Great. My mate doesn't have a fast ADSL connection. Does it have a multi
CD version I can download and pass to him?
If so, do you think, three years down the track on the same stable
release, it's be nice if he could use most of those CDs to do another
install and still be relatively up to date, out of the box, with errata
and updated drivers for all the storage devices he's likely to use?
Mike
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
