Re: Debian is not a "main distro"?
Steve Dunham wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Ole Jørgen Tetlie) writes:
> > Taken from COLA:
> > ----
> > These are just a few. The second thing I would like to bring up is that we
> > are in the process of building tutorial on Linux Installation/Configuration
> > for beginners. We plan to cover the two main distros, Redhat and Slackware.
> > (I like OpenLinux, but I want a specific enough selection so we can offer
> > the kind of detail that is helpful for beginners.)
> > ----
> > It seems that we still need to create some more interest in Debian.
> > Perhaps some developer would volunteer to eat a RedHat CD on television
> > or jump from a plane with a laptop and try to install Debian before
> > ha lands (using a parachute is OK I guess).
> Not me, it takes me under 10 minutes to install a rather complete
> RedHat system (incl. about 5 minutes to install all of the packages)
> and at least an hour to install Debian.
> (Here "rather complete" means a full development system with X and
> In addition to the packager apparently being slower, and the
> unnecessary interaction, many Debian packages do a lot of unnecessary
> computation: recompiling elisp files 3 or 4 times, recompiling TeX
> formats, etc.
> While Debian is easier to upgrade, and Debian packages seem to be of a
> higher quality, Red Hat has Debian beat on installation.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
If installation is the your main criteria, why not just stick with windoze !!!!