On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 03:29:20PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 08:59, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:33:21PM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I know Debian is more difficult to install, but I hope I will benefit by
> > > learning a lot. The default install for Redhat 7.3 is quite nice, but
> > > adapting it to my needs is a lot of work. I might as well try Debian and
> > > only install things I really need to avoid bloat.
> >
> > Configuring Debian exactly to your taste is not an easy task. More
^^^^^^^
> > difficulty at start for sure than Redhat. But "UPGRADING" with latest
> > release is very easy.
>
> Initial configuration isn't _that_ bad!
I am not smart enough to claim that configuring any OS exactly to your
taste is not an easy task. RH comparison, I believe is more nicely
described by Karsten.
> [snip]
> > Or if you are stupid enough like me to keep chasing latest testing version,
^^ Sorry typo :( I knew it causes
problem.
> > you will continuously upgrade. That is fun.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is my point :)
>
> Hmm. Let's not be so judgmental. Sometimes, even the woody
> packages trail the unstable packages by quite a bit...
I am not judgmental. Just a bad typer with broken grammar.
Because it is "Freeze" now. many testing lag behind. Also if testing
lag behind unstable like some XFree86 at one point, just install it by
# apt-get install package/unstable
and fix bug yourself. Usually trivial dependency or install script
glitches.
> [snip]
> > > I hope I have made clear what I want to do and would like to know about
> > > experiences from other people. Please tell me if I am wrong in choosing
> > > Debian for my needs. I want to and have time to learn, but would like to
> > > have an indication whether my goals are reachable.
> >
> > I can guarantee there will be steep learning curve. If your objective is
> > to have M$ Word, Excel, and Outlook to exchange proprietary file
> > format files as many non-programmers do, I suggest do not bother Linux
>
> On the contrary! Mozilla 1.0rc2 & Evolution 1.05 are almost
> perfect substitutes for IE & Outlook. OpenOffice 1.0 is great,
> though not perfect, at converting Office files.
There is nothing like "almost pregnant". No matter how similar they
are, they are different softwares.
I think these are great softwares and I think functionality wise they
are quite good. But expectation of user needs to be aligned properly.
This was intent of my message. If some one think these to be complete
plug-in replacements, they will bitch without reason for trivial
differences.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/
"Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net
I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
