Re: RH Veteran is now a Debian Newbie
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:16:09PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > > What surprises can a RH user expect?
>> >
>> > I guess the biggest hurdles would be the text-mode, no-detection
>> > installer (do a system inventory first) and the fact that stable is
>> > obsolete, so one is almost forced to upgrade to testing.
>>
>> I don't think this last is as true as people keep saying. Stable's quite
>> usable.
>
> agreed. stable is entirely usable. the fact that there's a whole new
> world of usability on the way--when sarge goes stable--shouldn't be an
I am committed to stable for several reasons. One is that the installation I'm
running is a Virtual Private Server running User Mode Linux running three time
zones away. Two, the UML images offer only debian stable as an option. Besides,
it's an 80MB server installation. The next largest installation was Fedora Core 1
at 450MB. I get the feeling the ISP wants people to use Debian.
> actually, i've yet to hear/read signs of significant gratitude from the
> new influx of rh refugees for the quality of support that has been
> extended to them on this list--not that it wouldn't happen, anyway. your
> commercial distro went cost productive, and then dumped you
Actually the controversy surrounding the change in policy is a little overrated.
Their distibution hasn't really changed. I think they would like to disconnect
with low-revenue customers but you can still download and use whatever version.
It's just the update service that has changed.
Personally I never used their services anyway so I could care less. I still use RH
7.3 on all my Linux machines (quite a few). The problem I'm faced with now is not
a feeling of abandonment but finding a boring, stable, consistent system. I get
the feeling people doing the RH think like to install a new version every year
just so they can get the latest translucent cartoon menus. I use WindowMaker on my
laptop and all my other machines are either X-less or it isn't used.
And big thanks all around for catching me :)
Mike
--
A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it
performs rather than the physical world or a process because this
maximizes the potential for it to be applied to tasks that are
conceptually similar and, more important, to tasks that have not
yet been conceived.
Reply to: