There are too darned many Linuxes

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jennings, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. Jennings

    Jennings Guest

    Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.


    Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    inventing and re-inventing Linux?

    Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.

    More to the point, how much are you really contributing to Linux and
    open-source
    by spending hours on rebuilding Linux?


    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8823760499.html


    Not to mention the support nightmare that problem creates.

    J.
     
    Jennings, Apr 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jennings

    Peter Guest

    Jennings wrote:
    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.


    This illustrates an important aspect of open source - freedom.
    If someone wants to tinker with a distro and tune it up how they like, they
    have the freedom to do so. Whether or not it is a waste of time, is
    entirely up to them.
    This article is just Steven's opinion that if someone wants to contribute
    some hours to open source, it would be better to build on an existing
    project, than to start a new distro. But even the existence of this
    opinion and debate illustrates the freedom that comes with open source.



    Peter
     
    Peter, Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jennings

    Shane Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > Jennings wrote:
    >> Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.

    >
    > This illustrates an important aspect of open source - freedom.
    > If someone wants to tinker with a distro and tune it up how they like,
    > they
    > have the freedom to do so. Whether or not it is a waste of time, is
    > entirely up to them.
    > This article is just Steven's opinion that if someone wants to contribute
    > some hours to open source, it would be better to build on an existing
    > project, than to start a new distro. But even the existence of this
    > opinion and debate illustrates the freedom that comes with open source.
    >
    >
    >
    > Peter


    It also illustrates the strength of GNU/Linux, Distros that are GUI focused
    for ex windows users, a distro for stabilty/licensing, Distros that can be
    optimised by the End User for their own machine(s), Distros specifically
    for routers, that will fit on a floppy disk, the list goes on.
    It shows that, if you have a situation you can build a GNU/linux solution to
    fit that situation
    Its bewildering to those new to the concept, but actually quite
    straightforward
    The interesting thing is, if you have a piece of software from one distro
    you want to run on your distro, and you have the source code, it will run
    on your distro.
    Moreover things that make one distro strong can be easily adapted for any
    other distro (Package Management has to be the obvious point here)
    If the project has no legs, it will die, survival of the fittest, and
    anything deemed worthy of being kept will be passed onto other distros (Im
    thinking about LRP project and how some of its concepts were taken up by
    other distros etc etc etc)
    Afterall, all a distro is, is a Linux kernel, and GNU packages customised in
    the image of the maintainer
    As for drivers, that takes a shitload more work than putting together a
    distro, and you have to reverse engineer the Hardware manufacturers driver,
    or worse, work blind and figure out wtf instructions a device will accept,
    and in what language
    (Assuming the manufacturer wont play ball, which a very large number arent
    yet)
    In fact that point shows Steven doesnt really understand the problems Linux
    or Other OS's face
    He does have half a point about people starting from scratch instead of
    building on a current project. However, Ive found that sometimes the best
    way *is* to start from scratch, because sometimes you find a different path
    than the current project has taken, and end up with a more elegant solution
    Of course Mileage varies
    All in all I think Steven misses the point altogether
     
    Shane, Apr 2, 2006
    #3
  4. On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:16:53 +1200, Jennings wrote:

    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >
    >
    > Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    > inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >
    > Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.
    >
    > More to the point, how much are you really contributing to Linux and
    > open-source
    > by spending hours on rebuilding Linux?
    >
    >
    > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8823760499.html
    >
    >
    > Not to mention the support nightmare that problem creates.
    >
    > J.


    Do what I do... ignore them all except Debian. Yes it is a bit silly...but
    the choice doesn't cost you anything.
     
    wogers nemesis, Apr 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Jennings

    Peter Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > Its bewildering to those new to the concept, but actually quite
    > straightforward


    This is not a new concept outside of software.
    Take music - if you want to create your own type of music to share with
    friends - no problem. If you want to make music in an existing style or
    genre (jazz, hip hop, chamber, etc), you can do so. It is called
    creativity, and artistic endeavour.
    The same applies in drama, sculpture, writing, science, whatever. It is
    normal practice for people to do their own thing, building (to a greater or
    lesser extent) on the works of others.
    You don't heard people complain "there are to darned many sculptures" (or
    plays or novels or ...).

    For some reason, people think that software is different. Perhaps it is
    because the software field is still so new and immature, compared with all
    the other fields of artistic / scientific work.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Apr 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Jennings

    Peter Guest

    Jennings wrote:

    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >
    >
    > Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    > inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >
    > Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.


    Linux is not suitable for everyone. There will always be those who are
    happier and more comfortable with Windows. Linux people do not lose any
    sleep over the latter.
     
    Peter, Apr 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Jennings

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Shane wrote:
    > > Its bewildering to those new to the concept, but actually quite
    > > straightforward

    >
    > This is not a new concept outside of software.
    > Take music - if you want to create your own type of music to share with
    > friends - no problem. If you want to make music in an existing style or
    > genre (jazz, hip hop, chamber, etc), you can do so. It is called
    > creativity, and artistic endeavour.
    > The same applies in drama, sculpture, writing, science, whatever. It is
    > normal practice for people to do their own thing, building (to a greater or
    > lesser extent) on the works of others.
    > You don't heard people complain "there are to darned many sculptures" (or
    > plays or novels or ...).
    >
    > For some reason, people think that software is different. Perhaps it is
    > because the software field is still so new and immature, compared with all
    > the other fields of artistic / scientific work.


    No its plain why software is quite different and that is compatibility
    which isnt an issue with art works which dont have to be compatible with
    each other

    Simply put if you put out a piece of software you expect to be able to
    easily run it on as many platforms as possible without a lot of extra
    work

    The more different platforms have to be supported by it the more
    inefficient it becomes and that is the No.1 reason why Apple has
    struggled to mantain market share against the Intel PC architecutre

    Therefore the distro producers fail to realise that they are all
    competing for a small share of a tiny market thus fragmenting and
    dividing their goals and effortsa

    Try supporting a few different distros and after a while they all have
    their own choice of arhitecture for say updates their own structure of
    directories their own combinations of particular applications they
    supply packaged and so on
    And pretty soon the support complexity is multiplied by the variations
    in every distro

    In reality OSS or free software is not better than properietry but it
    appeals to the weak minded socialists because it is taking on big
    capitralist corporations like Microsoft
     
    RJ, Apr 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Jennings

    thingy Guest

    Jennings wrote:
    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >
    >
    > Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    > inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >
    > Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.
    >
    > More to the point, how much are you really contributing to Linux and
    > open-source
    > by spending hours on rebuilding Linux?
    >
    >
    > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8823760499.html
    >
    >
    > Not to mention the support nightmare that problem creates.
    >
    > J.


    In a word choice.

    1) Lots of big names to choose from.
    2) Roll your own to meet a specific need.
    3) Use a customised distro to suit your spefic interest, eg clustering.

    Support, well you just support the ones you want to.

    eg,

    I support Debian, Redhat and at a push SUSE....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Apr 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Jennings

    Peter Guest

    RJ wrote:
    > In reality OSS or free software is not better than properietry but it
    > appeals to the weak minded socialists because it is taking on big
    > capitralist corporations like Microsoft


    The central control approach of Microsoft is much closer to communism (one
    party state, central control, no individual freedoms).
    The open source approach is much closer to the capitalist approach of the
    free market, with freedom of choice and individual freedoms.

    In communist regimes, they often claim they are "voted" in by the people,
    even though the people only had a choice of one. Similarly, advocates
    claim user "choose" Microsoft products, when in fact MS exerts monopoly
    power in the market, and most retail users don't have a choice. So
    pervasive is MS, that many users are simply not aware there could be an
    alternative to MS.

    The communist label on open source is just plain wrong. Just like the
    American "free trade" deals, which actually impose considerable trade
    restrictions. The famous double talk of George Orwell's 1984.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Apr 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Jennings

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Jennings wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >>
    >>
    >> Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    >> inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >>
    >> Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.

    >
    > Linux is not suitable for everyone. There will always be those who are
    > happier and more comfortable with Windows. Linux people do not lose any
    > sleep over the latter.


    Lennier does, but maybe he's not a Linux person.
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Jennings

    shannon Guest

    Jennings wrote:
    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >
    >
    > Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    > inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >
    > Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.
    >
    > More to the point, how much are you really contributing to Linux and
    > open-source
    > by spending hours on rebuilding Linux?
    >
    >
    > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8823760499.html
    >
    >
    > Not to mention the support nightmare that problem creates.
    >
    > J.


    The only thing you added to your cut and paste was the bit that you got
    wrong.
    It doesn't create a support nightmare.
    The people who create commercial distributions do it to sell support,
    there is nothing else in it for them.
     
    shannon, Apr 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Jennings

    bambam Guest

    Peter <> wrote in
    news::

    > RJ wrote:
    >> In reality OSS or free software is not better than properietry but it
    >> appeals to the weak minded socialists because it is taking on big
    >> capitralist corporations like Microsoft


    > The central control approach of Microsoft is much closer to communism
    > (one party state, central control, no individual freedoms).
    > The open source approach is much closer to the capitalist approach of
    > the free market, with freedom of choice and individual freedoms.
    >
    > In communist regimes, they often claim they are "voted" in by the
    > people, even though the people only had a choice of one. Similarly,
    > advocates claim user "choose" Microsoft products, when in fact MS
    > exerts monopoly power in the market, and most retail users don't have
    > a choice. So pervasive is MS, that many users are simply not aware
    > there could be an alternative to MS.
    >
    > The communist label on open source is just plain wrong. Just like the
    > American "free trade" deals, which actually impose considerable trade
    > restrictions. The famous double talk of George Orwell's 1984.


    Excellent post Peter. I've never heard the arguement put quite like that
    before, but it makes perfect sense to me. :)
     
    bambam, Apr 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Jennings

    thingy Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > RJ wrote:
    >
    >>In reality OSS or free software is not better than properietry but it
    >>appeals to the weak minded socialists because it is taking on big
    >>capitralist corporations like Microsoft


    This logic is screwed. If OSS software was no better than CSS, why would
    MS care about the GPL?

    If OSS was weaker, how could it be strong enough to take on the likes of
    MS?

    Why would MS want to prize the GPL licence off OSS code, except in order
    to be able to use that code? and why would they do this if the code
    offered no advantage?

    The answer is obvious,

    1) OSS code is as good as if not better the CSS code. Error rates for
    OSS match or exceed the best CSS code. So the code is worth having and
    MS knows this.
    2) OSS code offers a huge "free base" of good code for any company to
    use giving that company a far faster time to market at a far lesser cost
    than the CSS development model.
    3) The GPL stops MS in its tracks, they cannot buy it, they dare not use
    it for fear of being in court,
    a) They would lose, the GPL is founded in law, they know this.
    b) They would suffer a huge PR loss on at least 2 fronts,
    i)stealing code where they said the supported the oxy-moron of IP.
    ii) By using OSS code they admit they have nothing better, or at
    least anything close enough to bring up to speed.
    4) They know the OSS code has established a market, it fills a need so
    there are customers out there that are using it, so by closing it off
    they can extract "fees". So it has development time in terms of customer
    needs and therefore great value.

    So OSS has to be at the very least on par with CSS. If OSS was second
    rate it would be like tribants, no one would want them because they
    could by a VW Golf.

    Socialists have nothing to do with OSS, claiming so just makes RJ a
    laughing stock.....

    > The central control approach of Microsoft is much closer to communism (one
    > party state, central control, no individual freedoms).
    > The open source approach is much closer to the capitalist approach of the
    > free market, with freedom of choice and individual freedoms.
    >
    > In communist regimes, they often claim they are "voted" in by the people,
    > even though the people only had a choice of one. Similarly, advocates
    > claim user "choose" Microsoft products, when in fact MS exerts monopoly
    > power in the market, and most retail users don't have a choice. So
    > pervasive is MS, that many users are simply not aware there could be an
    > alternative to MS.
    >
    > The communist label on open source is just plain wrong. Just like the
    > American "free trade" deals, which actually impose considerable trade
    > restrictions. The famous double talk of George Orwell's 1984.
    >
    >
    > Peter
    >
    >


    Not communist, Totalitarian, huge difference IMHO, this then fits the
    picture you paint.

    Totally wrong "labels". This is not a left v right thing but more like
    total control in the hands of the few, v minimalist and dispersed
    control in the hands of the many.

    I find it interesting that "rightists" defend such monpolies, yet in the
    same breadth denounce Federal Govn control.....all they are really
    advocating is the replacement of a central organisation where there at
    least has been some democratic process, with a central process run by
    companies where no such democratic process has taken place......strange
    really.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Apr 3, 2006
    #13
  14. On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:20:23 +1200, thingy wrote:

    > I find it interesting that "rightists" defend such monpolies, yet in the
    > same breadth denounce Federal Govn control.....all they are really
    > advocating is the replacement of a central organisation where there at
    > least has been some democratic process, with a central process run by
    > companies where no such democratic process has taken place......strange
    > really.


    it's quite understandable, Thing.

    "Rightists" recognise only one value - that of the dollar.

    They will do anything, say anything, advocate anything, if by so doing
    they can make more money for themselves.

    They can make more money if they don't have a minimum wage that they must
    pay their staff.

    They can act with impunity, and thereby make more money if there is no
    central agency that mandates a minimum ethical standard of behaviour.

    They cannot make the money if the water reticulation system is
    administered publically. But if it is deregulated and privatised and sold
    off cheaply... then they have the possibility of making a fortune at the
    expense of the country as a whole.

    Thus what you or I see as hypocritical or unethical behaviour, they see as
    quite normal and commercially sensible.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "When a company starts fighting over IP, it's a
    sign they've lost the real battle, for users."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 3, 2006
    #14
  15. Hi there,

    Peter wrote:
    > RJ wrote:
    >
    >>In reality OSS or free software is not better than properietry but it
    >>appeals to the weak minded socialists because it is taking on big
    >>capitralist corporations like Microsoft

    >
    >
    > The central control approach of Microsoft is much closer to communism (one
    > party state, central control, no individual freedoms).
    > The open source approach is much closer to the capitalist approach of the
    > free market, with freedom of choice and individual freedoms.
    >
    > In communist regimes, they often claim they are "voted" in by the people,
    > even though the people only had a choice of one. Similarly, advocates
    > claim user "choose" Microsoft products, when in fact MS exerts monopoly
    > power in the market, and most retail users don't have a choice. So
    > pervasive is MS, that many users are simply not aware there could be an
    > alternative to MS.
    >
    > The communist label on open source is just plain wrong. Just like the
    > American "free trade" deals, which actually impose considerable trade
    > restrictions. The famous double talk of George Orwell's 1984.


    Quite obvious really. Right wingers harp on about freedom, but really
    they're only after control just like the lefties, so they're not at
    all different in my book...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Apr 3, 2006
    #15
  16. Jennings

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jennings wrote:
    >> Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.

    >
    > This illustrates an important aspect of open source - freedom.
    > If someone wants to tinker with a distro and tune it up how they
    > like, they
    > have the freedom to do so. Whether or not it is a waste of time, is
    > entirely up to them.


    You mistake freedom for libertarianism. If it were simply up to
    individuals to decide what's a waste of time, there would be no point
    in an open-source community ever existing. Someone who just tinkers
    with a Linux distro for their own amusement is exercsing their
    "freedom", alright, just like someone who tinkers with any kind of
    programming. No problem with that, but when you exercise your freedom
    in a way that contributes to some larger project, then you've got to
    be prepared to accept the collective judgment of others that you may
    possiblly be off on an unproductive tangent.

    > This article is just Steven's opinion that if someone wants to
    > contribute
    > some hours to open source, it would be better to build on an
    > existing
    > project, than to start a new distro. But even the existence of this
    > opinion and debate illustrates the freedom that comes with open
    > source.
    >

    Steven's point seems to be that there are productive and unproductive
    ways for Linux enthusiasts to exercise their freedom. Just because
    someone has their code rejected by the caretakers of an established
    distro doesn't mean that they should turn around and start their own
    distro. What's wrong with taking a little criticism and getting back
    to work?
     
    impossible, Apr 3, 2006
    #16
  17. Jennings

    impossible Guest

    "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    news:e0ngur$tal$...

    <SNIP>

    > He does have half a point about people starting from scratch instead
    > of
    > building on a current project.


    Half-a-point or whole point, it's an issue for Linux development.
    Because while the tempation is to think that any innovation is a good
    thing, it takes the collaborative effort of many developers to turn
    even the brightest of ideas into something really useful. Sometimes
    that means prioritizing development in one direction and not others.

    >However, Ive found that sometimes the best
    > way *is* to start from scratch, because sometimes you find a
    > different path
    > than the current project has taken, and end up with a more elegant
    > solution


    Well, maybe. But can you give me an example? I mean, it's one thing to
    have a novel idea for how to accomplish one task/function. But how
    many times does it actually make sense to start from scratch with a
    whole new distro just to push that one idea? Could it be instead that
    some individuals are more concerned to promote their own personal
    agendas than to promote the collective development of good open-source
    software?

    > Of course Mileage varies
    > All in all I think Steven misses the point altogether
    >
     
    impossible, Apr 3, 2006
    #17
  18. Jennings

    shannon Guest

    On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:23:04 -0400, impossible wrote:

    > "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    > news:e0ngur$tal$...
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    >> He does have half a point about people starting from scratch instead
    >> of
    >> building on a current project.

    >
    > Half-a-point or whole point, it's an issue for Linux development.
    > Because while the tempation is to think that any innovation is a good
    > thing, it takes the collaborative effort of many developers to turn
    > even the brightest of ideas into something really useful. Sometimes
    > that means prioritizing development in one direction and not others.
    >
    >>However, Ive found that sometimes the best
    >> way *is* to start from scratch, because sometimes you find a
    >> different path
    >> than the current project has taken, and end up with a more elegant
    >> solution

    >
    > Well, maybe. But can you give me an example? I mean, it's one thing to
    > have a novel idea for how to accomplish one task/function. But how
    > many times does it actually make sense to start from scratch with a
    > whole new distro just to push that one idea? Could it be instead that
    > some individuals are more concerned to promote their own personal
    > agendas than to promote the collective development of good open-source
    > software?
    >


    Thats possible, their agenda might be that they might want to make a live
    CD distro of repair tools, or one consisting solely of router tools. A
    distribution is just a collection of compiled binaries. Some small
    distributions might be the way that a particular source project gets
    demonstrated to users before it becomes a regular part of a large
    distribution like RH or Debian with its own package maintainer.
    Ubuntu has an agenda to promote, so does Debian, Redhat, Suse, Mandriva,
    Slackware Xandros and Linspire.
    The same source packages appear as binaries in all of them, the agenda of
    the distributions doesn't really have much effect on the upstream source.
     
    shannon, Apr 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Jennings

    Judges1318 Guest

    Jennings wrote:
    > Interesting read on the fragmented mess that linux has become.
    >
    >
    > Seriously. Why are there so many people wasting their time
    > inventing and re-inventing Linux?
    >
    > Yes, I said "wasting" and I meant it.
    >


    Someone else has mentioned the political parties
    and the advantage of having more than one, but
    I'd point to

    - cars
    - wine
    - beer
    - toothpaste
    - pullovers
    - shoes
    - bread spreads
    - cheese
    - etc etc etc.

    It is far far far better if you can have a choice rather
    than being forced to take what there is.


    The problem with Linux is that the number of distributions
    is beyond the proverbial "seven plus minus two" which is
    the number of options from which a human brain can make
    a rational choice. So, without some experience, the choice
    of any particular linux cannot be made rationally. However, someone
    has mentioned Debian, and I agree, it is a good choice.


    > More to the point, how much are you really contributing to Linux and
    > open-source
    > by spending hours on rebuilding Linux?
    >
    >


    I am sure far more people are wasting time and money
    trying to rebuild (and reinvent) the windows
     
    Judges1318, Apr 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Jennings

    impossible Guest

    "shannon" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:23:04 -0400, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    >> news:e0ngur$tal$...
    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >>> He does have half a point about people starting from scratch
    >>> instead
    >>> of
    >>> building on a current project.

    >>
    >> Half-a-point or whole point, it's an issue for Linux development.
    >> Because while the tempation is to think that any innovation is a
    >> good
    >> thing, it takes the collaborative effort of many developers to turn
    >> even the brightest of ideas into something really useful. Sometimes
    >> that means prioritizing development in one direction and not
    >> others.
    >>
    >>>However, Ive found that sometimes the best
    >>> way *is* to start from scratch, because sometimes you find a
    >>> different path
    >>> than the current project has taken, and end up with a more elegant
    >>> solution

    >>
    >> Well, maybe. But can you give me an example? I mean, it's one thing
    >> to
    >> have a novel idea for how to accomplish one task/function. But how
    >> many times does it actually make sense to start from scratch with a
    >> whole new distro just to push that one idea? Could it be instead
    >> that
    >> some individuals are more concerned to promote their own personal
    >> agendas than to promote the collective development of good
    >> open-source
    >> software?
    >>

    >
    > Thats possible, their agenda might be that they might want to make a
    > live
    > CD distro of repair tools, or one consisting solely of router tools.
    > A
    > distribution is just a collection of compiled binaries. Some small
    > distributions might be the way that a particular source project gets
    > demonstrated to users before it becomes a regular part of a large
    > distribution like RH or Debian with its own package maintainer.
    > Ubuntu has an agenda to promote, so does Debian, Redhat, Suse,
    > Mandriva,
    > Slackware Xandros and Linspire.


    Fair point. Everyone's got an agenda -- including the folks who now
    conrol the main distros. So, yes, some people would rather go their
    own way -- I can see that. I'm just not convinced that this is
    actually a strength of the open-source movement so much as it is a
    vulnerability, one it shares in common with the rest of the software
    industry. If the trend is for open-source development to become more
    and more fractured -- which was Steven's original point, I think --
    then a lot of energy gets wasted just in trying to justify "brand"
    differences of dubious importance to the end user.

    > The same source packages appear as binaries in all of them, the
    > agenda of
    > the distributions doesn't really have much effect on the upstream
    > source.
    >


    Having a large and solid base of upstream OS code is a good thing. But
    it doesn't necessarily follow that having developers separately
    devoted to Debian, Redhat, Suse, Mandriva, Slackware, Xandros, and
    Linspire versions -- not to mention the 134 other distros that Steven
    refers to in his article -- is the best way to go in the future.

    At this point, of course, there's probably not much that anyone can do
    about that, even if they wanted to. You seem to be saying that it's
    not a problem in any case -- I hope you're right.
     
    impossible, Apr 4, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. philo

    DSL I'll be darned

    philo, Aug 18, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    438
    richard
    Aug 19, 2006
  2. mattcar

    how many hard drives is too many?

    mattcar, Jun 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,875
    WhzzKdd
    Jun 29, 2007
  3. GraB

    How many fonts are too many?

    GraB, Jan 16, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    548
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish
    Jan 18, 2006
  4. Zipper
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    846
    Zipper
    Dec 1, 2006
  5. svchost.exe -- How Many Is Too Many?

    , Mar 24, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    913
Loading...

Share This Page