Antonio Olivares wrote: > --- David Boles <dgboles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Antonio Olivares wrote: >>> --- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>>> Timothy Murphy wrote: >>>>> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There are several choices here: >>>>>> >>>>>> Use the Live CD images >>>>>> >>>>>> Use the boot.iso/rescue.iso and do a network >>>> installation from >>>>>> http/ftp/nfs >>>>>> >>>>>> Use boot.iso/rescue.iso, put the DVD image in >> the >>>> hard disk in one >>>>>> partition and install it another partition. >>>>> There are several choices, I agree. >>>>> (I am using one of them.) >>>>> But this does not alter the fact that >>>>> the decision to drop the CD installation set >>>>> was completely incomprehensible, to me at least. >>>>> >>>>> You might as well put up a banner reading, >>>>> "Don't install Fedora if you are a home user. >>>>> Try Ubuntu instead." >>>>> >>>>> Surely the aim should be to make it as easy as >>>> possible >>>>> for as many people as possible to install >> Fedora. >>>>> It is not meant to be an obstacle race. >>>> Except the fact that Ubuntu has been doing >> something >>>> similar all along. >>>> They provide only Live CD's and do not promote >>>> regular installations at >>>> all. Next time you do a comparison you got to >> check >>>> whether the other >>>> side is actually any different. >>>> >>>> Rahul >>>> >>>> -- >>>> fedora-list mailing list >>>> fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >>> Who cares what Ubuntu, et.all provides. Fedora >> had an >>> edge before (despite that people will complain, >> I'm >>> with you Ric in this one), it allowed users to >> install >>> applications that they will surely miss/or cannot >> fit >>> on a CD. These same folks are on dialup and do >> not >>> have a fast internet connection. With the yum >> presto >>> plugin, maybe that changes, but still fedora had a >> big >>> advantage to pick and choose the software with the >>> multiple cd's and dvd's. >>> >>> One of advantages of the LiveCD is to test the >>> hardware before you install, but it only has a >> limited >>> amount of software. Should Fedora Board stick to >>> their guns, why not make a LiveDVD with as much >>> software as possible. And if possible, also make >> a >>> special spin of cd isos as they had before. This >> will >>> keep users happy and quickly forget the bad >> episodes. >>> Regards, >>> >>> Antonio >> One thing that I have never quite understood about >> this argument. Granted >> that dialup is very limited. But if it so much >> trouble and takes so long to >> download a single CD, install it, and then add few >> extra desired packages by >> downloading just them why is it *not* more time >> consuming and more trouble >> to download 5 CDs which contain many packages that >> you will probably never use? >> >> It seems to me that one CD and several packages add >> later, the way it is for >> F7, would be easier and faster to download and >> install. What am I missing? > > You download the cd's from a fast internet connection, > i.e, at work using their bandwidth. At home, fast > connections are not possible, no dsl, so dialup is the > only viable connection. Also one can order the CD's > through online vendors and then install from there. > > Regards, > > Antonio Now that makes sense. But no one has ever said that. I don't know where you are Antonio, and it is none of my business either, ;-) but were I am a good DVD+RW burner costs about $30 US dollars. -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
