OK, to sum, we have a couple of opinions on a client distro. Do we
have a recommendation on Debian vs. Mandriva?
This is a lappie.
What am I giving up by punting on Ubuntu?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit th
Mikey-3 wrote:
>
>
> 2) On a client, why is Debian better? For servers, you could make any
> argument for any distro and I'm sure it would make sense on one level
> or another, but I'm putting this on my lappie.
>
>
Its better because you don't have the upgrade/reinstall problem in the same
Uh, Richmond, yeah. Oops. Just making up for the fact that half the
list calls me "Mickey" for some reason. I can understand the other
half calling me "ignorant", but I digress...
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please v
Mikey wrote:
"Sorry, Richard . . ."
Who is 'Richard' ? Sure hope he appreciated your apologies.
Love, Richmond :)
A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life Cycle.
_
Trying to get the responses all in one:
1) I really hate Solaris, period. I hate it on our Sun boxes, too.
Maybe that's because the commands seem very clunky compared to HP-UX.
I hate the interfaces. I haven't tried OS, but I can't imagine that
it's shed its legacy.
2) On a client, why is Debian
Sorry, Richard, I was just trying to help you get around it.
There are other issues as well. For example, in a clean 8.1 install,
I have HPLIP (a sophisticated manager for HP printers). I decided to
uninstall it to try something, except when it uninstalled, it took all
my network services with i
I don't hate Ubuntu.
Ubuntu has served extremely well, breathing life into a few extremely low-spec
Pentium IIIs in my EFL school. Those computers have been running Ubuntu 5.10
since that distro was released; no crash, no smash, and always does what it is
meant to do.
Having spent days gutter
Personnaly, I hate Ubuntu.
As Linux user, my favorites distributions are those:
- Centos (Redhat Enterprise Linux Free)
- Debian
As Centos is RHEL, everything is working fine, it does not have the
latest technology as other distributions but it is really stable. And
updating works!
Debian is r
All this is a reason for going with Debian proper rather than Ubuntu. You
get continuous upgrades. Whereas Ubuntu, you have Debian in the background,
but you have to do clean re-installs every time you do a major upgrade. So
with Ubuntu, you have all the disadvantages of Debian and none of the
Something that I also tried that doesn't work as well is putting /boot
in it's own partition. After fiddling and fighting with it, what I
really wanted to do, and finally settled on doing, was putting GRUB in
it's own partition, and letting each distro have its own /boot
directory.
___
I'm a Hardy->Intrepid survivor, so here goes
As someone who has gone through a variety of issues with a Hardy to
Intrepid upgrade (I started a thread on the Ubuntuforums about it),
the most common problem is with unused package uninstalls. If toward
the end of the Intrepid upgrade you answer "yes
Talking about reinventing the wheel . . . I tried to install Ubuntu 8.10
on a Pentium 4, 1.7 GHz, 256 RAM and got the "black screen of death":
subsequently found out 2 things:
1. This is an all-too-common problem.
2. Ubuntu have not responded to all the piles and piles of moans
about this fact.
12 matches
Mail list logo
