fc5: install everything?

[Benjamin Franz]

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.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

I don't care how many levels of reality you posit; as soon as you posit even
one it's turtles all the way down.
                                              ---Nova Spivak