Other linux systems are not as easy as Ubuntu - my opinion

[Adriano Varoli Piazza]

2006/9/25, Raymond Lillard <ryl at plasmaequip.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wade Smart wrote:
> > 09242006 1921 GMT-6
> >
> > A local business asked (tricked) me into helping me this weekend on
> > their computer. They said they had linux but what they really has was
> > Sun Solaris on ix86. Well---- I worked for hours trying to install
> > Solaris 10 and couldnt get things to work. And the forums for Solaris
> > are not very good.
> >
> > I made a phone call a minute ago saying, "I installed Ubuntu on 8
> > computers in the time I got through the first set of menus and the thing
> > crashed. Ill install Ubuntu for you?"
> >
> > My point is, while I know Solaris is for a different use, its to darn
> > difficult to install and therefore, who knows if its good to use. I know
> > Ubuntu installs fast and easy and its easy to use.
> >
> > I think that says it all.
>
> All you've really established is that you know little about
> Solaris.  Both Solaris and Ubuntu are fine operating systems
> and I've not seen Solaris crash since Solaris 1 (although it
> was called Solaris w/o the 1) back in the previous millennium.
>
> Ray

Adding to the not-so-little fact that Solaris is not Linux. Plus, I've
tried and used Mandriva extensively, and there are still parts of it
that make much more sense than in Ubuntu, like the partitioner
(diskdrake was and still is a great disk partitioner ages ago, when
Ubuntu didn't even exist). Some similar things might be said for SuSE.
Their problem at the time was their lack of an easily downloadable
iso.

Really, judging operating systems by their ease of installation only
is a really flawed metric. I'm glad the original poster is happy with
Ubuntu, but this logic is... not.

-- 
Adriano Varoli Piazza
The Inside Out: http://moranar.com.ar
ICQ: 4410132
MSN: moranar at gmail.com