fc5: install everything?

[Mark Haney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>> It is just not worth my time.  Next time it will be SUSE instead.
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>
>> Good luck with that.  I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
>> installed by default.  You think Fedora's installation is sparse?  I was
>> amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE.  Really, it's a
>> total joke to work on that server.  It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
>> a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
>> with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
>> manageable.  The SUSE install is just silly.  The Fedora installer is at
>> least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
>>
>> But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that.  Kind of
>> like taking your ball and going home, eh?
> 
> I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain
> on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or
> four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with
> install media.
> 
> It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't
> actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have
> to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have
> actually have a full install.
> 
> And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even
> CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the
> lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of
> ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it.
> 
> And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching
> distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is
> actually saying something.
> 
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install
everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk
space or security for your servers.  Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a
server?  Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop?  Sounds
extremely lazy and inefficient to me.

[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]


- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEX5P2YQhnfRtc0AIRAo7PAJ4pPBOQitHyoaK2Tjg9rFgx9z8cFQCg506E
T7GzKDyaW5czMoyxK7mdftI=
=i8on
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----