"Brooks R. Robinson" wrote: > > Start of Soap Box > > I agree wholeheartedly. If I want Microsoft Linux, I'll buy Redhat. Truly, > that is the standard that must be met for "ease" of installation. If you > want to simply follow instructions to set up an OS, install a Microsoft OS; > in the same manner also, if you want a quick Linux box, install Redhat. > Don't expect that you'll understand even the slightest fraction of what > you're doing or why, but you'll have an OS. I expect that because Debian > isn't the easiest thing in the world to install and configure properly, that > I will learn more about UNIX and it's derivatives because I've installed > something off the beaten path. And isn't that how Linux came into > existence? By being off the beaten path. I could ramble more, but I've > said enough. > > End of Soap Box >
My first distro was RedHat (5.0, 5.1, & 5.2). I originally installed it just for the hell of it, plus the fact that I couldn't tolerate the daily (or even hourly) crashes of 'doze 95 anymore. RedHat shelters you from the major things, but I did learn enough about Linux that I could move up to other distros. Now that i've outgrown RedHat, i've moved to Slackware, and now Debian. Debian is by far the best distribution i've tried, but I think distros like RedHat do have their place, and do serve the purpose of promoting Linux somewhat. If not for RedHat, I probably wouldn't have started using Linux as early as I did (if at all), and that would truly be a shame. I love Linux, whether it be RedHat or Slackware or Debian or.... -- Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] He who sacrifices functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither.
