__/ [William Poaster] on Sunday 01 January 2006 23:55 \__
> Once upon a Sun, 01 Jan 2006 17:06:35 -0500 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when TheLetterK posted this, & nothing
>>> I would recommend SuSE if you intend to use many different applications,
>>> but (K)Ubuntu otherwise.
>> Huh? Ubuntu has access to a wider range of repositories, and more
>> packages. Ubuntu with just universe and multiverse uncommented is pretty
>> comprehensive, let alone the packages on all the third party repos.
I guess you are right, but it still requires progressive installation,
which reminds me of one of the deterring truths about Windows and Mac OS.
Just getting all your frequently- and rarely-used applications is a sig-
nificant chore. With SuSE, I keep several mirrors of the home
directory/ies with all the dot files. If a hard-drive crash hits, just let
the SuSE CD's roll, then restore home directories. The build is complete
> Oh shit, not going over *that* again...
I agree. Installation out of the box is always more reliable than building
your own environment. The cost (pennies) is disk space. There is no
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Did anyone see my lost carrier?"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:10am up 22 days 14:21, 14 users, load average: 0.04, 0.16, 0.25
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms