Mark Haney wrote:
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
like taking your ball and going home, eh?
No, not childish, just efficient. These distributions are really not
all that different. The same packages are there, so the question
is just which is easiest to install? And yes, SUSE has an install everything
checkbox that works very well.
I've been using RedHat since 4.0, but this is a show stopper.
Installing everything is not a security risk.
All of my installs (and I would guess most installs) are for machines
with user bases of known trustworthy people, such as my family or coworkers.
Local exploits are not an issue. People running servers with shell access
for scores of remote unknown people are the exception, not the rule.
Some people have said that I should only install programs that I'm going
to use. Well, my wife uses KDE, my son uses Gnome, I use fvwm. My wife
uses kmail, my son uses mozilla, and I use pine. My wife uses OpenOffice,
I use emacs/latex, my son uses, uh... I don't even know what it's called.
I could go on and on. And that's just my family. At work
the situation is even more diverse. I'm _not_ going to hunt all those
down. For years I've just done install everything and it just worked.
Until now.
I don't understand the mentality of taking away a very useful
feature that lots of people want (even if it's not perfect),
and saying that it is better.
-Frank
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary,
"everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages.
User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature?
Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the
first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this
is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEX32bYQhnfRtc0AIRApxkAKCceM17q8hKzmaxl2jqZSX6wo3xKgCePf/3
3/EPzr3rLK1av+eG0KsxtP0=
=1qc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
