(no subject)

[Brian Conway]

> > Let me first say that I really like Linux alot.  I ran the red hat 5.2 at
> > first.  But in lieu of red hat 6.0 I simply installed mandrake 6.0 because a
> > friend gave me the CDs.
> >
> > What do you think of this distribution mandrake vs. red hat.  I will attest
> > to the fact that a Mandrake install is a no brainer.  It seems to be the same
> > or so they say.

I used redhat for quite a while before switching over to mandrake, and
have been very impressed with what I have seen.  Being based on redhat,
the install as well as most of the setup is very much the same.  I was
sceptical when mandrake 6.1 came out before redhat 6.1 was released (has
yet to be released out of beta, actually), since I was used to an almost
identical package set that was optimized for pentium class computers and
the rest remained the same as the redhat distribution.  But, I've found
most of the same things, as well as a lot more various useful packages
without needing an excessive number of CDs (not a follower of SuSE,
sorry).  As for the claimed 5% - 30% improvement in these "optimized"
packages, I can't really say I saw much difference in my dual PIII-450
(*grin*), but when I set it up and running on a P133 to do some basic
mail and webserving, there was a noticable improvement.  Overall there
wasn't a huge difference between redhat, just some extra junk here and
there plus the whole "pentium optimized" thing which was nice.

Brian Conway
dogbert at clue4all.net

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
                -- Henry Spencer
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).