angrykeyboarder at angrykeyboarder.com
Sat Dec 24 00:00:32 GMT 2005
Michael Shigorin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:22:19PM -0700, Scott wrote:
>> My point still stands. It should be part of the default installation.
> Hm, if someone would insist that way in ALT's mailing lists a few
> people (including me) would honestly recommend staying on RHL/FC
> for that matter.
If Fedora core would go back to "unofficially embracing apt4rpm", I
might consider it. While YUM is in some ways "technically superior" to
apt, it's slower than molasses in January. I was spoiled by apt from
the beginning (Fedora Core 2/3). I tried 4 recently and found that
apt had pretty much been phased out and YUM seemed slower than ever.
Besides, in spite of what I find wrong with Ubuntu/Kubuntu, it's still
the best out there as far as my needs are concerned. But then, nothing
is perfect and I'm all for putting my $.02 in. On some very rare
occasions, my suggestions get implemented so not all is lost. And I've
yet to have an opinion that wasn't shared by many others when it comes
to um.. most anything actually. lol
> If there's not enough proof up the thread, I can crank up
> a bit more but highly doubt it would be listened to. :-)
> Everyone prefers own habits, no matter how broken.
That we do. Observe any operation for a while (office, restaurant,
factory, whatever) and if you are of normal or above-average
intelligence you'll see things they do that could be done better. You
might be brave and suggest they make changes. They will either a)
defend their wrong way, declaring it is fact, right or b) respond with
"but we've always done it this way (even though we've heard of a better
way before, we don't want to change)"
It's just human nature.
> Me too, it seems.
Back to my comment about the "build-essential" package. I'd never even
heard of the package before I tried Ubuntu (I've since learned they
inherited it from Debian).
I've talked to a few "gurus" who were quite surprised that these tools
were not part of a default install, and being that a number of packages
in the repository are either out of date or just non-existent,
"./configure, make, checkinstall" has become a semi-regular activity.
I can't be the only one in this situation. And I've seen a lot of
"newbie" posts in the forums with "./configure: doesn't work!" etc.
And so, that's how I formed my opinion. :-)
Now if Ubuntu would like to offer more frequent updates (not distro,
just individual packages) as well as a better selection (notably missing
- KDE themes/styles - and a number of "universe" packages are old and/or
broken) then I'd have no need for compiling software from source anyway.
© 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
More information about the sounder