Re: 5.0: installing everything

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 5/2/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The thing I always wanted from an 'everything' install was the expertise
of the distribution packager as to whether something would likely be
useful to have installed.  Someone, somewhere must have known enough
about the packages to decide what was worth including in the
distribution.  I'd take their word for whether it should be on my hard
disk or not.

There seem to be two mindsets when it comes to stuff like this. The
folks who want everything there in case they might need it down the
road, and the folks who want only what they need immediately, and if
something else is required they'll install it later.

I believe the latter to be the safest approach, given the ease of
installing software with yum.   The only reason I could possibly see
for an everything install would be for a beginning user who has know
idea what the package names are or what things do.

They're not providing it because they think you'll need it. They're
providing it because they think SOMEONE using the distribution might
need it. For example, you don't need sendmail AND exim AND postfix,
you only need one of them.



--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux