On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:17:29 -0500, Sandeep Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:05:20 -0600, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:41:15 -0500, Sandeep Kumar wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:54:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My desktop:
>>>>
>>>> http://schestowitz.com/temp/screenshots/screenshot-2008.jpg
>>>
>>> Gorgeous.I prefer Slackware myself though.
>>
>> Slackware ??????
> Yes.
>> Slackware is a BAD choice for a *desktop* when compared with the ease
>> of install and setup of any of the desktop oriented distros, such as
>> Fedora, Debian and Mandriva etc.
> But Slackware works,
So do all the other Linux distros, many tailor made for desktop use,
unlike Slackware.
> is predicatble and can be made to look just as good
> as Mandriva if need be.
Probably better, but you'll need a decade of Linux admin experience to
achieve that.
> It can also be made to look just as ugly as
> Ubuntu if that's what you prefer.
No thanks!
>> Slackware is for experienced Linux administrators only, and new Linux
>> users are advised to stay well away from it for a few years.
> Slackware is easy to use and install.
It's definitely easy to install, but NOT easy to use for newbies.
I repeat, Slackware is for Linux EXPERTS *only*.
> I've been using Linux since the
> late 90's FWIW.
Same here. My initial Linux exposure was in 1993.
My server runs Slackware and has done the last several years.
root@wifi:~# uptime
08:47:19 up 88 days, 14:34, 11 users, load average: 0.18, 0.27, 0.22
It's a dual 1Ghz P3 HP Netserver with hotplug SCSI hard drives in Raid 1
and 1GB ECC ram.
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
|
|
