On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:42, Beartooth wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:10:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > >> Urk. I needed an embarrassing amount of help when FC1 was still newish; > > > > Well, upgrading RHL/FC has always required more experience and > > "handcrafting" than that required by other distributions ;-) > > Oddly enough, unless I've lost more memories that I think, I had no very > great trouble getting from 7.2 to 8.0, nor 8.0 to 9. I never managed 6.x > at all, and had to have my friendly local Alpha Plus Nerd install 7.2 and > hack a connection to DSL from it; since then, with a lot of help from the > Net, I've mostly managed .... > > > However, the amount of problems, I was facing after upgrading to FC2 > > exceeded the amount of problems, I was used to face when upgrading > > previous versions of RHL/FC. > > > ATM, I would have to lie to recommend to get started with Linux with FC2 > > to beginners. They probably are better off choosing a different > > distribution. > > OK, given several years' experience with RH (and a couple with YellowDog), > and none with any other *ix, which? Whitebox seems eminently > unapproachable to the uninitiated. I've been trying to follow > gmane.linux.whitebox.user, and can't even tell what the posts are about > ... :-( > > > However, I can recommend FC2 to professional sysadmins, to advanced > > Linux/*nix users, to developers, to those who aren't scared about going > > after problems, if something doesn't immediately work and to those who > > want to "play and learn" with a Linux-system. > > I have no doubt it does those things, and I don't mean to complain of > that; but I am emphatically none of the above. > > > As I see it: RH had promised FC to be closer to the bleeding edge, now > > we (the users) are facing the consequences. Admitted, RH could have done > > better, but I also don't see much reason to bash them, because they > > could have done much worse. > > I hope nobody here thinks I'm bashing either RH or FC. I just don't want > to be an endless hindrance with questions and problems that are both > elementary and dumb. > IMHO elementary and dumb questions are those that fall into one category. They have been asked by the same person and answered a hundred times before. (This implies an inability to understand and use information given.) Questions of this type I ignore. ANY other question is of benefit (either to the asker, or to someone reading the list). Even many questions on the same topic are different because it defines a conversation where details are being filled in. It can never be assumed that the person asking the question meets any specific criteria. They may be new to the list, or a long time user. They may be new to linux or a long time user. They may be an expert in many areas, but lack knowledge in one. So a question that seems trivial to you may be a major stumbling block to someone else. Some say the only DUMB question is the one that is not asked. > I want linux of some flavor, knowing I can tweak anything whatever, > if/when I feel the need; and I'd defend myself in any way necessary > against anyone who tried to force me back to MegaScat (or the detestably > counter-intuitive Apple Interface, either!) -- and expect any sane jury to > acquit me, if it came to a trial. > > But I don't want to *have* to tweak things before I can start using them > (and finding out what tweaks suit me); and I don't want to get blindsided > by security holes. Yum and cron are a great help, bless them! > That goes without saying, and is part of the usability criteria. > -- > Beartooth Autodidact, curmudgeonly codger learning linux > Remember I know precious little of what I'm talking about! > > >
