What was it about eD 2.4?

[Aaron Grewell]

> > 1) The packages included were well chosen.  There was a little of
> > everything for everyone, and not too much of anything irrelevant
> 
> that's subjective Llama (I'm not disagreeing). But how does one define 'well 
> chosen' and 'relevant'?
> 

It seemed to me that they picked a set of categories and installed the
most straightforward app per category by default.  Others might ship on
the CD, but there was no '20 text editors' syndrome.  Also (in blinding
contrast to RH) the menus made sense.

> > 2) It was very stable, and getting addons running was relatively easy
> 
> true that. but what distro(s) are unstable these days? and by 'easy' do you 
> mean installing an rpm, or installing from source?
> 

Either installation from source or binary was pretty easy, of course
back then they and RH were on roughly the same library sets, so the
major binary incompatibilites were few.  Now if only they had added an 'of
course I want the devel packages' option it would have been perfect.