On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote: > A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands > to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be > (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from > my explorations, fits this definition. > > So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the
<snip> No problem with me provided that third party non-free software, i.e., Oracle, Infomax, etc are easily ported to Debian, FBSD, NetBSD, Slackware, etc. Different distros offer different adminstrative tools, and different packages. Distros offering different administrative tools is a good thing IMHO; the tools for newbies should be different than for the guru. However, if I want to run Oracle, I do not want to have to switch to RH. If third party software vendors (that do not provide source) had a tree (like teTeX) and have envionmental variables point to parts of tree, it seems that any distro can easily include the software in a packge. Is it that simple? If so, are the vendors doing this? King Lee
