On Fri March 31 2006 2:43 am, Paul Howarth wrote: > But that's not what happened and it caused a real problem for > the "Everything" installers. Hate to disagree and/or jump back into this discussion, but I just don't buy this oft-repeated argument. I did many 'everything installs', and I encountered this issue with a small number of packages, and I remember them well. It gave me a reason to research those packages, find out something about them, and when I saw that they were not needed for my particular system, I just removed them. And I learned something, not just about the particular package, either, but broader knowledge about dependency problems and such...which has everything to do with why I liked the everything install. And now, I've gotten used to the new way, and it's OK, too - I think the detractors who talk about thousands of clicks are equally wrong, btw... After doing multiple FC5 installs, using the right-click method, I can get through the package lists in under 5 minutes, and there are many things I leave out, now that I've learned a bit about Linux. But, the oft repeated argument that those pesky packages that wouldn't get updated caused "real problems" for us, I think is a red herring. Problems are always opportunities - solving them increases one's knowledge. I also remember trying some smaller installs and also having problems. Things that wouldn't work, and packages missing whose name you didn't know, and spending much time tracking such issues down - so, it can cut both ways... But, this argument, I'm sure, will go on and on -- too bad, because, the matter has been settled - to paraphrase W. Churchill, using up the present to argue about the past is a good way to shortchange the future... -- Claude Jones Bluemont, VA, USA
