Re: Suse 10.0 vs. Fedora core 5

["Tamal" <tamal.nath@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:55 PM, Lamont R. Peterson <lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote,

But still, I don't see any relevance or viability to saying, "SUSE must be
better because they install lots of junk I don't need in only 1 hour, where
FC took me 2 hours to install all that junk and there wasn't as much junk." 
Um, maybe I just found the relevance?

What do you mean by junk files ? Can you prove your statement with proper example(s) ? If you want to tell that the packages related to

1. specific hardware that is not available in your system
2. some languages that you don't know
3. dependency of other packages that you would never use

then those packages are unnecessary packages for you. Now I saw a interesting situation: I installed FC5 without selecting any packages from KDE; but still it installs kdelibs. On the next day I installed FC5 without any packages from Gnome. Now it installs one gnome library. This problem is not only for FC5. Now come to hardware related packages. I de-selects printer packages on FC4 but it installs it. So, Fedora core has many unnecessary packages. For SuSE it is very early to comment on as I am relatively new to SuSE.

I still don't think that Red Hat (RHEL or FC) minimal installs are very minimal.

I appreciate that.

 

-- 

amd64-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list