> I don't mean this to sound rude, but it probably will do. If you need > it and no-one else is willing to do it, we look forward to submission of > your patch. If no-one else is willing to devote resources to it, then > take a step back and ask why.
:-) well said. > Also, please note that Debian doesn't only run on PC's, which makes the > install significantly more complex under the bonnet. Indeed ... I believe the PPC & PA-Risc ports are particularily good. > Because the old crap works, and is quick and functional. Bloating the > OS to fit into newer systems is much more of a MS approach. I run a couple of Compaq 850's (Pentium Pro) which make superb servers under Woody and an old Compaq Professional Workstation 5000 (again, PPro) as an X terminal - Debian works flawlessly for this, try getting Windows XX to run reliably and effeciently on that hardware.. I used to sell computers for a living, and most people who bought the most up-to-date computers only wanted to write the odd letter, email and surf the web - not the best use of system resources. Just because your hardware is not the latest/greatest, doesn't mean it's useless... > Different people have different criteria for what constitutes an > arse-kicking. Some people want more bells and whistles, some want > reliability etc. For me, the ability to install a system from scratch in less time than it takes the Windows 2000 installation to format a 40gb disc is arse-kicking! :-) > Working on beautifying something that is rarely used is possibly not the > best use of resources. If you disagree, like I said before, then please > contribute your resources! :) I would say that the Debian installer is used (on a per-system basis) less than M$'s one anyway ;-) regardless of how many machines you have. Cheers, Pete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
