[nzlug] Dell are sooo pwn3d

[cr]

On Friday 29 June 2007 17:50, Nevyn wrote:
> On 6/29/07, Ross <rosscoad at slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> > Craig Box wrote:
> > > With a finite amount of support, and a perfectly serviceable file
> > > system otherwise available, how much developer and support effort
> > > should be diverted from other tasks to support this?  And ReiserFS? 
> > > And JFS?  Etc
> >
> > etc
> >
> > > etc..
> >
> > Now that's a much better argument.
> >
> > > Too much choice is a bad thing.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with this however, a main reason I choose to use
> > Linux is because of the choices it offers, I don't think there is too
> > much choice..... not from this end-user's perspective anyway.
> >
> > Ross.
>
> We have to remember one Ubuntu's main selling points when it came out.
> Redhat were offering a 3 cd install. Debian, 14 cd's (or something
> ridiculous like that anyway).

Yes, but you only needed all 14 CDs if you wanted every single app.   You 
could build a working Debian system with all the major apps with just 2 or 3 
CD's (I always did) - and that's how most major packagers of Debian sold 'em, 
as 2 or 3-CD sets.   In fact you could do a complete working installation 
with only CD #1.   

I later got the 14-CD set of Sarge 'because I could' - a Trademe seller was 
offering them for a good price - not because I needed to.   It was handy to 
have 'every known application' on hand, even though I hardly ever needed to 
insert any CD other than 1-3 to install an extra app.    My laptop (which 
doesn't have a DVD drive) is still running that version.

And I LOVE the huge choice of programs that it gives.

If Red Hat or Micro$oft were to offer versions of their operating 
systems 'complete with every known app that will run on them' how many CD's 
do you think that would take?

> Ubuntu's strength was that it was 1 cd, download anything that was surplus
> to the cd, but otherwise the 1 cd would or should fulfill the majority of
> needs. I.e. a word processor, browser, an environment to work within (I'm
> guessing they could only fit one environment on the cd thus we have kubuntu
> and xubuntu) etc. Ubuntu was sort of built on the idea that too much is a
> bad thing.

Ironically enough, Ubuntu has never installed happily on my fairly ordinary 
system.   Debian has been the easiest most reliable install, certainly for 
the last few years.   (Since I'm on a 56k modem, I tend not to update, but to 
to 'upgrade by new installation' off CD's on a spare partition, then migrate 
my settings, so I'm always fiddling with various distros).

In the days when Mandrake was said to be the 'easy-to-use' version of Red Hat, 
I could never get Mandrake to install successfully, either.   I've had some 
versions of Knoppix hang, too.   Odd, that.

cr