On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 13:56 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > I was responding to the person who said > ================================================ > 2. Myself and many other people, who always > backup/format/install/restore, have no issues. If anything, the > installer is getting better all the time. > ================================================ > > The clear implication of this seemed to me to be > that he was a person of superior intellect > who didn't have problems installing Fedora > like lesser minds like me. ---- Not sure why you seem to take everything so peronally. ---- > > I like Fedora, but in my experience it is greatly inferior > to other distributions _at the point of installation_. > This is not the only or even the main matter > when judging between distributions. > Eg SuSE is better at installing on different machines > than Fedora, but there are other aspects of SuSE > which lead me to prefer Fedora. > Knoppix is by far the best at booting, in my experience, > and I would advise anyone having problems installing Fedora > to see if the Knoppix CD will boot on their machine, > as if it does then they will probably succeed in installing Fedora > sooner or later. > > I'm sorry, but I remain of the opinion > than anaconda not only has serious deficiencies, > but does not have in place proper mechanisms for dealing with them. ---- You are talking about installing on hardware that is not mainstream type hardware. I have found it always tough to install Linux on systems with Intel 440_X boards and my Sony PictureBook is always an adventure. The anaconda installer has always worked fine for me but I am very cautious to do things like burn the cd's at very low speed, do md5sum (now sha1sum) on downloaded iso's, media check. Then of course upgrades require a bunch of fiddling afterward. Craig
