 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/16/debian_lenny_review/
Apparently Debian is "well known" for being difficult to use.
Damn. I had assumed that that's just how Linux always is... Time to
re-evaluate my position.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/16/debian_lenny_review/
>
> Apparently Debian is "well known" for being difficult to use.
>
> Damn. I had assumed that that's just how Linux always is...
That Debian is well known for being hard to use doesn't mean other distros
aren't. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Apparently Debian is "well known" for being difficult to use.
>>
>> Damn. I had assumed that that's just how Linux always is...
>
> That Debian is well known for being hard to use doesn't mean other
> distros aren't. :-)
No. But I was under the impression that Debian is a popular distro.
Apparently it isn't. Maybe I need to try something that really is
regarded as user-friendly...
(Although I must say, I typically base my opinions of a distro on how
pretty the default graphics are, and how easy it is to operate the
installer.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:55:47 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> assumed
There's that word again. <shaking head>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:46:58 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Apparently Debian is "well known" for being difficult to use.
>>>
>>> Damn. I had assumed that that's just how Linux always is...
>>
>> That Debian is well known for being hard to use doesn't mean other
>> distros aren't. :-)
>
> No. But I was under the impression that Debian is a popular distro.
> Apparently it isn't. Maybe I need to try something that really is
> regarded as user-friendly...
>
> (Although I must say, I typically base my opinions of a distro on how
> pretty the default graphics are, and how easy it is to operate the
> installer.)
Then, as stated before, try openSUSE or Ubuntu.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No. But I was under the impression that Debian is a popular distro.
>> Apparently it isn't. Maybe I need to try something that really is
>> regarded as user-friendly...
>>
>> (Although I must say, I typically base my opinions of a distro on how
>> pretty the default graphics are, and how easy it is to operate the
>> installer.)
>
> Then, as stated before, try openSUSE or Ubuntu.
Tried OpenSUSE. (My dad is still using it, in fact.) I quite like YaST
(especially the way you can run it without needing X). The latest
version seems to have done away with the "minimal text-mode install".
(Or at least, it's not very "minimal" any more!)
I'm currently using Ubuntu on my laptop. It's a really dull shade of
brown. (There's probably a way to change that.) I find it slightly odd
that each version has a silly name. I'm currently using Hardy Heron. I'm
about to try Intrepid Ibex. (Although I must say, I'm never really sure
what the actual *difference* is between releases of Linux distros -
apart from the artwork usually being slightly different.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (There's probably a way to change that.)
Of course there is. There are many ways. You can change the color scheme,
you can change the theme, or you can write your own theme (in C :D)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> assumed
>
> There's that word again. <shaking head>
Well, you know what? There's a limit to how much one person can
independently verify as fact. Particularly when it comes to assessing
what is "popular" and what isn't. Who's word do you take?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> assumed
>>
>> There's that word again. <shaking head>
>
> Well, you know what? There's a limit to how much one person can
> independently verify as fact. Particularly when it comes to assessing
> what is "popular" and what isn't. Who's word do you take?
http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> assumed
>>>
>>> There's that word again. <shaking head>
>>
>> Well, you know what? There's a limit to how much one person can
>> independently verify as fact. Particularly when it comes to assessing
>> what is "popular" and what isn't. Who's word do you take?
>
> http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
Also have look at this:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
