Re: Whats with this new Debian installer?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 08 August 2004 09:48 pm, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 10:43:16PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:49:33PM -0300, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > - grub as the boot loader
> >
> > Not for me -- I use LILO.
>
> This is the major thing that annoys me. Which moron is it that
> decided GRUB is better, and so you'll use that regardless? Only, I
> think a choice would be nice.
>
> Added to that, I understand that you can now also choose between
> installing stable/testing/unstable. Heh, that really does amuse me.
> *That* certainly won't cause mass confusion when someone chooses
> unstable,
I run unstable, why not install it? Why not have an option to install it?
Many Many Many Many people run it. Why not have that as an option? What
confusion? "Oops, I realy wanted stable. Now that I have spent 15 min
installing the base system, I really don't want to waste all that time and
re-install the stable system. Looks like I am forced to use unstable. Dam!"
Debian is about choice. Why not have a choice about what you want to
install. Dam site easier then upgrade, dist-upgrade, playing with the
kernel, because you really wanted the latest one. I see no reason to protect
stupid users or ignorant users (debian newbies) at the expense of removing my
choice. Call it a learning experience and 15 min well spent. I have never
been confused by selecting unstable (and I mean NEVER even as a newbie). My
2c worth.
> only to realise that woppps, they meant something else.
>
> -- Thomas Adam
> --
> "Frankly, Mr. Shankly, since you ask. You are a flatulent pain in
> the arse." -- Morrissey.
- --
Damon L. Chesser
damon@damtek.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBFvCUqsyfyuythCARAlY9AJ9XCbpVEMX+uHSxtpvOLlZzeWxImQCgn6UM
FU0PT67guAiA9iV/nvmacuQ=
=DLAW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: