Re: branding debian releases
> I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need
> it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of
> your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then
> take a step back and ask why.
:-) well said.
> Also, please note that Debian doesn't only run on PC's, which makes the
> install significantly more complex under the bonnet.
Indeed ... I believe the PPC & PA-Risc ports are particularily good.
> Because the old crap works, and is quick and functional. Bloating the
> OS to fit into newer systems is much more of a MS approach.
I run a couple of Compaq 850's (Pentium Pro) which make superb servers under
Woody and an old Compaq Professional Workstation 5000 (again, PPro) as an X
terminal - Debian works flawlessly for this, try getting Windows XX to run
reliably and effeciently on that hardware..
I used to sell computers for a living, and most people who bought the most
up-to-date computers only wanted to write the odd letter, email and surf the
web - not the best use of system resources. Just because your hardware is
not the latest/greatest, doesn't mean it's useless...
> Different people have different criteria for what constitutes an
> arse-kicking. Some people want more bells and whistles, some want
> reliability etc.
For me, the ability to install a system from scratch in less time than it
takes the Windows 2000 installation to format a 40gb disc is arse-kicking!
:-)
> Working on beautifying something that is rarely used is possibly not the
> best use of resources. If you disagree, like I said before, then please
> contribute your resources! :)
I would say that the Debian installer is used (on a per-system basis) less
than M$'s one anyway ;-) regardless of how many machines you have.
Cheers,
Pete.
Reply to: