From: Keith Keller on
On 2009-10-07, Just A. User <me(a)some.fake.isp> wrote:
>
> When do you want an unstable system that doesn't work well, lets you down
> and requires hours of your time to work? Inquiring minds want to know...

Creating a desktop machine for one's boss? ;-)

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

From: Loki Harfagr on
Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:31:04 -0700, Keith Keller did cat :

> On 2009-10-07, Just A. User <me(a)some.fake.isp> wrote:
>>
>> When do you want an unstable system that doesn't work well, lets you
>> down and requires hours of your time to work? Inquiring minds want to
>> know...
>
> Creating a desktop machine for one's boss? ;-)

Oops, please Keith, do not post so wi[l]dely spoilers about 'job insurance'...-)
(though it'd prolly imply installing MSvista but that'd be using a
sledgehammer on the pins of an angel [any number would each be])
From: Peter Chant on
Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2009-10-05, Simon Sibbez <simon.sibbez(a)buerotiger.de> wrote:
>> dreaded wrote:
>>
>>> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20091005#feature
>>
>> mooni kwote: "Unfortunately, the work involved in maintaining Slackware
>> generally means I end up turning to a different distro."
>>
>> nuff said.
>
> 'Nuff said to what point? Do you think everyone thinks it's too much
> work to maintain a Slackware install?

Taken in its entirety I though it was a reasonable article. The comment
about easy to install, in the context of current distro's is a valid one.

I'd recommend Slackware to my parents as I'm the one who does any mantenance
at all on their PC and I could set it up so they could not seriously break
it. I'd recomend an Ubuntu variant to my brother as he'd get on with the
install fine. Hourses for courses.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

From: Ron Gibson on
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:44:18 -0400, "Aaron W. Hsu"
<arcfide(a)sacrideo.us> wrote:

>It is also THE distro for no-nonsense installations that you just want to
>work and use without having to bother with learning many gotchas where the
>distribution doesn't match the rest of the world. When I want a stable
>system that will work well, not let me down, and won't require hours of my
>time to make work just as I want it, I go for Slackware, not something
>like RedHat or Ubuntu.

That is so true. If the current KDE turns too many people off it's
easy enough to up or downgrade it.

You don't have to worry about what someone else's idea of dependencies
are and the resulting problems with the so called "package manager"

--
Email - rsgibson(a)tampabay.rr.borg
Replace borg with com
"Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


From: Aaron W. Hsu on
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:07:02 -0400, Just A. User <me(a)some.fake.isp> wrote:

> When do you want an unstable system that doesn't work well, lets you down
> and requires hours of your time to work? Inquiring minds want to know...

Sometimes it is worth it to take a hit to efficiency of configuration and
maintenance, as well as overall system stability, in order to gain in some
other area. Short term rapid deployment in pre-configured places where the
work has already been done in another distro, for instance. Or if you need
to sell a solution that requires a large company base and full-time
support teams around it. Or, in my case, I may want to squeeze out every
last drop of performace at the cost of stability to run one specific
application for a specific task on a project. I've done this with things
like 3-D Graphics Workstations.

Aaron W. Hsu

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis