Now try Suse 9.2

Post #178,541 by broomberg 10/8/04 9:31:34 PM Reply	Now try Suse 9.2
Post #178,544 by daemon 10/8/04 9:35:56 PM Reply	Re: Now try Suse 9.2 right after mandrake, using this to doc how different current distros are usable from an installation point of view as well as usability. regards, daemon
Post #178,547 by drewk 10/8/04 9:41:32 PM Reply	Keep in mind what Ben said about perl From the comments you clearly know your way around Unix. Is the Debian installer bad because it's bad, or is it bad because it didn't do what you expected? As someone who avoids installing new OSes any more than I have to, I can testify that they all suck to some degree. The only ones that have been easy have done it by installing everything in the world, which I then spend weeks trying to turn off to get decent performance from my creaky hardware. I once tried to put RedHat on a laptop with a 2G disk. By the time I was deep enough into the custom configs to turn off all the extra crap I didn't need, I might as well not have been using the graphical installer any more. Once Greg sees this thread I'm sure he'll point you at the graphical installer you should have been using. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #178,549 by daemon 10/8/04 9:54:34 PM Reply	Re: Keep in mind what Ben said about perl re-read my rational comments, the installer has a bad design, making assumptions about better than lowest common denominator (in the case of video generic VGA) coundnt find a nic(not a problem) then assumes because it couldnt find it that you could not setup a network config file to get more of the install later. Now ftp adresses for aditional packages should not be deterred because of lack of tcpip. A reasonable installation would assume that a nic could be added and configured later and built the config anyway. Yes the conf file is available on the net but it is stupidity to not build it then during the install then fail the apt-get when an attempt is made without IP services. regards, daemon

Welcome to IWETHEY!