Message-Id: <m0wLwoR-000FjwC@hn.planet.gen.nz>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 08:14 NZST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
From: Lorier <lorier AT ihug DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries
Cc: OpenDOS Developer Mailing List <opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com>
Precedence: bulk

>Well, actually, Red Hat is now (with release 4.0 and 4.1) about just as
>easy as Windows 95. Just that instead of a "Typical, Complete, Laptop,
>Custom" radio-button choice, you get a couple of checkboxes with things
>like "Multimedia Software", "Web server", "FTP server" and so on,
>separated by general functionality instead of actual packages. There two
>buttons at the bottom and a checkbox: Install, Cancel and "Select each
>packages manually" (for the more knowledgeable, but still it takes what
>you select in the checkboxes as defaults).

Yeah, I think that trying to tell each other that linux is the best OS ever
we could waste a lot less time by saying "RH Linux is simply the best" and
leave the advocacy for non-converts :)

I tend to be one to do things the hardway :) (Dunno why, I just do, although
it usually means I end up getting stuff to work thats "impossible" :)

That sounds better than I recall, but still people haven't heard of a "web
server" or a "ftp server" or a "multimedia software" :)


>The install itself is much better and easier than Win95. To be more on the
>same level, we should compare with Windows NT 4.0 Server instead, no? You
>have to create 3 boot disk and the installation is not quite as easy and
>you lack a ton of things (like, you install the web server but you still
>have stuff to do to make it work, with Red Hat, you just open up a browser
>and it works (with a demo page telling how to put your own pages in
>there))...

Yeah, I recently installed http for RH :) it was nice and easy :)  I'll have
to find out how the httpd server sets up under NT :) 

>Red Hat 4.1 blows both Win 95 and Win NT to smithereens. In every aspects.

Yep!! :)