Once upon a Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:15:20 +0000 dreary, as I laboured tired &
weary, came a tapping at my door when Roy Schestowitz posted this, &
> __/ [William Poaster] on Sunday 01 January 2006 23:55 \__
>> Once upon a Sun, 01 Jan 2006 17:06:35 -0500 dreary, as I laboured tired
>> & weary, came a tapping at my door when TheLetterK posted this, &
>> nothing more...
>>>> I would recommend SuSE if you intend to use many different
>>>> applications, but (K)Ubuntu otherwise.
>>> Huh? Ubuntu has access to a wider range of repositories, and more
"More packages"? Perhaps he can tell us *what* packages are available for
(K)Ubuntu which are *not* available for SuSE?
>>> Ubuntu with just universe and multiverse uncommented is
>>> pretty comprehensive, let alone the packages on all the third party
> I guess you are right, but it still requires progressive installation,
> which reminds me of one of the deterring truths about Windows and Mac OS.
> Just getting all your frequently- and rarely-used applications is a sig-
> nificant chore. With SuSE, I keep several mirrors of the home
> directory/ies with all the dot files. If a hard-drive crash hits, just let
> the SuSE CD's roll, then restore home directories. The build is complete
> and well-integrated.
>> Oh shit, not going over *that* again...
> I agree. Installation out of the box is always more reliable than building
> your own environment.
Yes, & a darn sight faster too.
> The cost (pennies) is disk space. There is no Registry-like
98% of linux problems *windows* users whine about,
emanate from somewhere between the chair and the PC.
Either the person cannot read, doesn't understand
what they read, or they can't be bothered.