Subject: Re: Better than YDL and OSX
From: Timothy A. Seufert (tas@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Oct 29 2001 - 13:21:07 MST
At 1:42 PM -0600 10/28/01, Nathan A. McQuillen wrote:
>Ummm...
>
>Maybe your snippy reply was better sent off-list, TS? Since it wasn't, I
>think it demands a sensible reposte from somebody who /doesn't/ have
>contempt for those who expect quality and functionality in their operating
>systems.
That's a bizarre accusation. It's hard to imagine how you read that
(and the rest of the opinions you attributed to me in that long
screed) into what I said. It does not seem worth responding to.
In case it isn't absolutely clear, I think YDL is a fine Linux
distribution. It has its quirks, mostly during the install process
in my experience, but works well once set up.
But you're not going to find a suite of GUI tools making it easy to
set up Apache and other servers, because such things do not exist for
YDL to integrate, and YDL is a small distribution whose parent
company does not have the resources to take on such a project itself.
That's the sort of thing which seemed to be expected (and, in fact,
demanded) in this case.
The usability software sponsored by the big x86 distributions is
generally oriented at providing a day to day desktop productivity
environment. It's expected that the users of Linux server software
are either already capable of configuring it the hard way or
interested in learning. Most "server" install options in Linux
distributions don't even install X11, because it's generally
considered bad practice to install X11 on a dedicated server (YDL is
no exception).
-- Tim Seufert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 12:31:47 MST