Michael Shigorin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 05:00:32PM -0700, Scott wrote:
>>My point still stands. It should be part of the default
>>installation.
>Hm, if someone would insist that way in ALT's mailing lists a
>few people (including me) would honestly recommend staying on
>RHL/FC for that matter.
If Fedora core would go back to "unofficially embracing
apt4rpm", I might consider it.
ALT is with apt-rpm (which is technically superior to apt4rpm)
since almost the beginning.
I'm not familliar with that one. But I'm sure it'd find something wrong
with it too. ;-)
Besides, in spite of what I find wrong with Ubuntu/Kubuntu,
it's still the best out there as far as my needs are concerned.
So you might want to forgive some difference.
I do and I realize that I've not given that impression. lol I've stated
it a few times in this thread but I turned around and drowned it out...
> There's no such thing as a perfect distro,
Exactly, hence my previous statement saying just that.
Choose your non-ideal distro or a few and stick with them --
until there's next great thing which would outweigh even habits
and community.
As we've stated, nothing is perfect.
Ubuntu/Kubuntu/WhateverUwuntu is my favorite, that's why I'm here. lol
I've talked to a few "gurus" who were quite surprised that
these tools were not part of a default install, and being that
a number of packages in the repository are either out of date
or just non-existent,
Uh, so, erm, there's not enough packages? Shame on Debian,
or Ubuntu, for that matter. But you could help to package
the rest of the world ;-)
Oh there are zillions of packages, they just manage to leave the few out
that I want (my dumb luck, I guess :-) ). Or, they have them but older
versions of them (I've never quite figured that one out).
"./configure, make, checkinstall" has become a semi-regular
activity. I can't be the only one in this situation. And I've
seen a lot of "newbie" posts in the forums with "./configure:
doesn't work!" etc.
Actually it's a feature. (I've explained above how one of such
newbies has recently quite thoroughly refreshed my thoughts on
this particular topic; and why ISOs of extras are critical)
"Extras" as in packages not available in the Ubuntu repositories?
Unlike some, I'm cool with Ubuntu having only non-free software (a point
of contention from many new to the GNUworld. I just manage to want
free sofware that's more current than what Ubuntu has OR something that
I could get for another distro, but not for Ubuntu etc.
And so, that's how I formed my opinion. :-) Now if Ubuntu would
like to offer more frequent updates (not distro, just
individual packages) as well as a better selection (notably
missing - KDE themes/styles - and a number of "universe"
packages are old and/or broken) then I'd have no need for
compiling software from source anyway. :-)
Well you can spend some more time and do packages, or switch
the distro.
I'm sticking with Ubuntu/Kubuntu. In fact, I resolved one of my
"problems" a few nights ago by upgrading to Dapper. By doing so I could
get the packages listed here (
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=29317 ) to work under
Ubuntu. I'm sure there was an easier way, but I've been trying to
complie them from (various) source(s) for weeks without success.
Depending on the source of the source (lol) I had source that was too
old (or in this case) too new.
Now if I could just figure out how to package them specifically for
K/Ubuntu (Breezy & Dapper) I would. :-)
I've offered someone to go ahead and adopt blender from orphaned
(and maybe update it to new and shiny 2.40) when they've asked if
anyone could build it for latest stable. I'd help that person
but I already have enough packages to maintain (it's 123 pcs atm,
including apache, xmms and alsa userspace).
So it's just OK to help with the missing parts. Even for us
blind monkeys. :-)
:-)
--
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
|
