On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 01:29:18PM +0000, Thomas Ribbrock Design/DEG" wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 11:49:32PM -0600, Vidiot wrote:
> [...]
> > with 6.1 custom. I believed that the 6.1 installation would provide the
> > same level of installation support as 6.0 did. Mistake #4.
> [...]
>
> Ok, in fairness to Vidiot, there have been more than his mails about
> the RHL 6.1 installer on this list. I will not judge any of them
> right now and I do not have tried 6.1 myself (until now I avoided
> x.0 and x.1 releases from Red Hat... Hence, I'm still on 5.2) so I
> can't judge the installer itself, but I am beginning to wonder
> whether such a seemingly big change as an installer change was a
> good thing to do on a minor version change. I can at least
> understand how one could be led to expect similar behaviour from an
> x.1 installer with regard to the x.0. I myself was actually
> surprised to learn (from this list) that 6.1 was so much different
> in this regard from 6.0 - that's something I'd have expected from a
> move to 7.0. But maybe that's just me - how do other people think
> about this?
Yes, yes, yes, but 6.1 has been out since Oct, and all this has been
rehashed so many times it must be soup by now. My first install was in
Oct and I elected to do the text install because that's what I was used
to and there were already reports of many problems with the GUI
installer (many fixed with updated boot.imgs). I also made a point of
reading the fine print, checked the errata, and subscribed to the
Cartman list beforehand. And guess what, no surprises at all. This
isn't just old news, it's ancient history. Time to move on ... 6.2 is
around the corner.
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
