Hadron wrote:
>
> Sandeep Kumar <deep8391720122@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 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, is predicatble and can be made to look just as good
>> as Mandriva if need be.It can also be made to look just as ugly as Ubuntu
>> if that's what you prefer.
>>> 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.I've been using Linux since the late
>> 90's FWIW.
>
> I'd be interested to know why Terry thinks Slackware is so
> "difficult".
Simple answer: Try it yourself, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark.
That way we will not see your filth for the next several years, because you
are then still trying to figure out how to /start/ the install.
*You* are the one constantly having problems with simple things
> Isn't it the same kernel and Gnome or KDE as everything else?
Oh, it is.
> Or is he trying to preserve Slackware for those he deems as |_EEt?
Idiot
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
|
|
