Re: 10.2 Beta 2 DVD: First impressions

On Thursday 17 March 2005 19:03, Dave Ellis wrote:
> To this Mandrake user, they were very different.  I liked the speed that
> FC3 had going for it, but I don't know, I felt obtuse with it.  CentOS
> was the same, and it did have one additional quirk to it, a moments
> hesitation when clicking on icons.  I don't know what was up with that
> though, I didn't take the time to figure it out.  Thank God for BIG
> drives and partitions.  :D

Well, I wanted to try rawhide a few days before RC was released. Want to know 
how much fun that was compared to getting cooker to install?

I tried installing with boot.iso and a mirror on my local drive held the core, 
anaconda crapped out on me. I waited a few days for possible bugfixes and 
tried again - same problem. Perhaps anaconda just wasn't up to installing in 
this fasion?

I installed FC3, learned YUM (which, like every package manager, sucks 
compared to urpmi's power), tried to upgrade my packages from the rawhide 
media - yum couldn't do anything right - I had conflicts from packages that 
were simply newer versions of themselves - which makes no sense to me. If 
it's going to be gone, how can it be a conflict?

So - as usual, when I try a new distro, I got disgusted in the incomplete 
package manager and rebooted to my mandrake, which I've generally had very 
little problems installing cooker from HD image or DVD/CD's made from mkcd 
over the last 6 or so years I've been running cooker. And most of the time 
can update my entire distro w/o too many issues with urpmi --auto-select.

And now, why did I want to try Fedora?

Mandrake is an excellent distro but lately I've been getting fed up with the 
intertwining and dependency hell, and surely not least the customization that 
usually leaves me with a desktop the way Mandrake thinks I want to see it. 
The way I want to see KDE is the way KDE released it with default settings.

How the hell is anyone ever going to say linux (in general) is ready for the 
desktop when every flavor has a different layout and icons, and other various 
stupid changes even if the user chooses the same desktop environment. I mean 
everyone knows that Mandrake, Debian, Fedora, Suse, Slack are all different 
distro's but why does everyone need their own layout? Is there really that 
much to gain by dumb things like putting the word "Menu" on a menu button 
that already says it's the menu when you hover over it?

Or in Fedora's case does it help to have less items on the taskbar? Or is it 
just making things harder to find?

What's wrong with any DM's display manager that's so bad mdk had to create 
mdk-kdm which will no doubt confuse people when they make changes in the 
kconfig and nothing happens to the login screen.

Or what about kcontrol and it's menu's itself? What's so wrong with kde's menu 
system that mdk has to rearrange everything?

I understand that each distro has some notion of making things easier, but 
they normally don't. They just make them different than the other guys. I'd 
like to see a less retouched desktop with perhaps more tools available in 
mcc. If Mandrake was nothing more than linux with a real (COMPLETE) control 
panel they'd have everyone's ass kicked.

-- 
http://www.skycon.net/
AIM: JasonRStraight
ICQ: 1796276