On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:16:46 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:

>>>Last resort, Slackware 10, "difficult, not-user-friendly, CLI
>>>configured, you name it", in two and half hours connected to internet
>>>with Netscape

>> I'm not saying Slack was a wrong choice. I use Slack and Mandrake
>> both, but to have some credibility the comparisons should be with the
>> same generation of each distro. Don't you think?

> Now you are patting me "against my hair" or what is left of it. What
> exactly you want to compare?

I have no idea what your reference to hair means... I was referring to
your comparison between Slack 10 and OLD versions of Suse and Mandrake,
regarding time needed to install and configure.

> The configuration scripts which in one distro I read in human language
> and in the other I have delivered by some UFO (aka. Wizard).

Ahhh, the favorite Slack argument "against" the "user-friendly" distros.
In case you didn't know it, configuration scripts are just as easy to edit
manually in those distros as they are in Slack. Why wouldn't they be?
You don't have to use Wizards if you don't want to.

> Maybe you want to compare my ability to install one distro against
> someone elses ability to install another and configure it to our
> respective usages of them.

Nope, just want you to compare (fairly!) the installations of said distros
with each other. Newer versions of the distros you mentioned are much
improved over the versions you used. In my experience, it takes no longer
to install Mandrake or Suse than it does to install Slackware. Counting
post-install configuration time, they are probably faster than Slackware.
YMMV.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.org> writes:
> Ahhh, the favorite Slack argument "against" the "user-friendly" distros.
> In case you didn't know it, configuration scripts are just as easy to edit
> manually in those distros as they are in Slack. Why wouldn't they be?
> You don't have to use Wizards if you don't want to.

but at least some of those distros tend to overwrite your own
changes. which makes editing them by hand easy but rather ineffective.

--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments

Joost Kremers wrote:
> Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.org> writes:
>
>>Ahhh, the favorite Slack argument "against" the "user-friendly" distros.
>>In case you didn't know it, configuration scripts are just as easy to edit
>>manually in those distros as they are in Slack. Why wouldn't they be?
>>You don't have to use Wizards if you don't want to.
>
>
> but at least some of those distros tend to overwrite your own
> changes. which makes editing them by hand easy but rather ineffective.
>

And those 'Wizards', libraries, and DE they run on take up much more
resources than a simple call to pico

Matt Darby

Dan C wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:16:46 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:

> Ahhh, the favorite Slack argument "against" the "user-friendly" distros.

Please, don't become your favorite "wizard" and give false meaning to
what was written.
For all I care the "user-friendly" distros can be used by anyone who
deserves it.
And I will still use a tool which performs functions that *I* need
performed.

This IS Linux after all, and that's the reason we meet here.

For missionary blah-blah I visit alt.religion.*.*.*.

Have fun, and the source be with you.

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.