Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning

["Jonathan A. Zdziarski" <jonathan () nuclearelephant com>]

> Debian maintains security fixes for all stable packages, so none are 
> really outdated. 

security fixes != software updates.  granted one could upgrade with
apt-get if they had the bandwidth, but the software I've seen in Debian
3.0 was lacking at least a few notable versions.

> Debian 3.0 CD3 uses a 2.4.18 boot kernel, so you can install under 2.4. 

Why put this on CD3 instead of CD1? There are far more 2.4 users than
2.2 users out there.  Installing Debian using the standard practice
(starting with CD1 and moving up) is kind of like installing windows 95
and upgrading as you go.  But either way, why not go with 2.4.20?

> Finally, if "poorly designed" means you actually have to read the 
> install prompts, then yes, I think you're probably right.  However, the 
> neophyte I gave an install CD last week didn't have a problem, so that 
> issue is overblown.

By poorly designed I mean text-based, crappy looking, not very
user-friendly for the average person we're trying to win over from
Windows.  In the setting of desktop OS, Debian is probably the worst
distro available due to its very archaic install tool and the lack of
several important drivers in the default install to even bring up X on
many systems.

Any good Linux distro geared for desktop users has to be able to hold
its own against the simplicity of a Windows setup, if we're ever going
to gain market share.  There are some very basic requirements that must
be met:

1. A simple, graphical setup
2. Out-of-the-box support for a wide range of hardware
3. Post-installation tools for configuring printers, users, etcetera
4. A graphical, easy-to-use patch system
5. Simple, yet standardized enough to be used by savvy Linux users

Debian meets maybe 1 or 2 of these.



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html