Re: "Fastest Linux of the world", hardware detection, X11 config
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:00:47PM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
> I just read a news about the fastest Linux of the world
> ("http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/49086"; in german). I don't want
> to discuss the "fastest" but the question remains why Debian doesn't
> have a hardware detection as good as Red Hat or an X11 configuration as
> good as Suse?
>
<flame-mode>
As good as RH? You mean Fedora? In my last experience with Fedora Core 1
it refuses to install at all because an empty SCSI disk of 36GB was
detected as insufficient for installation. Fedora Core 2 worked, but
for the i810 chipset, which is detected, but does not work in any way.
Both them were unable to install a boot loader
without a /boot partion on the master ATA disk, anyway.
The target box was a Compaq Evo, so a 'pro' computer, not a fucked
home-assembled machine.
If this is the quality of such distros, well I prefer 100% d-installer.
</flame-mode>
I do not find auto-detection capability of rh or suse particularly
better than d-installer one. If you are comparing with woody bootfloppies,
then you are right, of course: woody does not autodetect nothing at all.
But that's a feature, not a bug :)
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: