Originally posted by: civad
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Debian.
I used to detest such statements/ answers by Debian users in the Debian forums/ newsgroups. I used to feel that if someone needs to know why a thing X is good or bad, maybe someone should spend some time to explain why. But after spending a few months toying around with Debian, I believe that the time has come for me to get detested. And here's why:
a. Someone said about Slackware that it is as friendly as a coiled rattlesnake. I will go a step further and say that Debian can be as friendly (to you) as your pitbull or as hostile as your neighbor's... in other words, you should know how to 'control' it or be ready to get bloodied/ intimidated/ feel uncomfortable with (whatever the case may be)
b. I agree with the positive things about Debian posted by wizardLRU. In addition, I must also add that Debian has excellent documentation for *almost all* of its packages. In general, very few people actually bother to read the manuals/ help files; etc; but more often than not, in many distros, I have felt frustrated when I type
>man xyz
and I get the response:
no manual entry for xyz.
c. A regular follower of GNU/Linux distros might notice (and realize as to why) that many of the distros are based on Redhat or are RPM-based. But in general, the distros being talked about most (Knoppix, Xandros, and..whether you like it or not..LindowsOS). Esp. with reference to Xandros and LindowsOS, why would the commercial distros choose Debian over other distros? Ease of use, reliability and configurability are a few characteristics that come to my mind.
What I observed/ expreienced/ realized about Debian was through personal experience, discussion with other Debian users and also a lot of READING OF MANUALS.
<deviation from topic>
I honestly believe that one *must* have his/her own experiences with Debian before they ask others something like:
"Should I try this?" "What will happen if I do so-and-so?" "I am having trouble with so-and-so." without actually TRYING it.
I would appreciate if people said things like "I had problem X and I read/someone told me to do so-and-so; but it didnt work" -->provide references if possible.
It might be because I am semi-Debianized at this stage....
</deviation from topic>
I thought Debian was the only distro concieted enough to call itseldf GNU/Linux.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I thought Debian was the only distro concieted enough to call itseldf GNU/Linux.
But in this case it sort of serves a purpose, because they have Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd in the works. What will be truly scarey is when we see "Debian BSD/Linux" released =)
I would cry. I really would.
I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I would cry. I really would.
So would I, the BSD userland utils are really lacking compared to the GNU ones.
I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
Take it up with their political mailing list, I'd love to see the answer you get =)
Originally posted by: civad
Well.. a few other distros *make an attmept* to call themselves GNU/Linux (but thats done in ..um..fine print-like manner)
Some distros other than Debian to be concieted enough to call themselves GNU/Linux:
Sourcemage
Nasgaia
Linuxin
Openwall
Blackrhino
Its a little surprise that more than half of these are Debian-based
(A quick searchat distrowatch and lwn got me these names).
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
Originally posted by:n0cmonkey
Hmmm... I will be more specific next time
Originally posted by: Bremen
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?I think it should be: GNU/BSD/X11/Linux atleast!
Originally posted by:Bremen
In the GNU faq on this they say that doing such quickly becomes cumbersome, therefore they believe the list should be just the major contributors, ie GNU/Linux. Of course if you want the major contributors in any modern distro we'd just be calling them Red Hat Gnome and Mandrake KDE... really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?
really, does the kernel really matter to end users? or the development tools used?