-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin Franz wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>> It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead. >>> >>> -Frank >> >> Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing >> installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was >> amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a >> total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on >> a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along >> with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really >> manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at >> least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used. >> >> But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of >> like taking your ball and going home, eh? > > I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain > on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or > four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with > install media. > > It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't > actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have > to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have > actually have a full install. > > And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even > CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the > lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of > ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it. > > And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching > distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is > actually saying something. > [Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me. [I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.] - -- Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX5P2YQhnfRtc0AIRAo7PAJ4pPBOQitHyoaK2Tjg9rFgx9z8cFQCg506E T7GzKDyaW5czMoyxK7mdftI= =i8on -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
