What was it about eD 2.4?

[Matthew Carpenter]

* Things generally worked.
* Install was beautiful and intelligent (found my network settings and
installed while I finished supplying config info)
* Packages were used AS IS.  Any config or comealong tools worked with the
original config files (which allowed you to manually edit the conf files and
still have the GUI tools work as well :)
* Menuing system wasn't dorked around with.
* Simple design allowed a full install to come from one CD and give you a
great base system which you could then install apps on.
* Integration with KDE (KControl integration)
* Stable and solid as a rock.
* Good package selection didn't give too many options for the same thing, but
generally the best one.
* Caldera developed the little "fine-toothed-comb" items like the GUI config
which let you configure how KDE treated a CD when it was first inserted. 
Little pieces that just made the whole thing seem cohesive.  Even SuSE, my
latest love, can't pull that one off.  They still take the Hitler approach:
Usen meinen konfigurator toolen und leik it.

Things I would have liked to see:
* Repository for packages specifically designed for, but not included with,
the distro.  I like RPM's.  I like the cleanliness included.
* Installer which did not inform me that it could not install on my system
(which it should have)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:49:11 -0400
Tina M Berendt <tina at berendt.homeip.net> wrote:

> Given the recent interest in resurrecting and maintaining the old 
> Caldera distro, I thought I'd take a minute to ask everyone to quantify 
> what it was about eD (or eS) that was so great. Was it the file layout? 
> The installer? The GUI tools? What? I used and loved eD, but find it 
> hard to say why I felt it was so nice. I *think* a lot of my fondness 
> has to do simply with familiarity... once I learned "the Caldera way" on 
> OpenLinux, eD was such a natural progression that I think a lot of my 
> 'it was so great' is simply because I *knew* it.. however, I now 'know' 
> SuSE, but don't have the same warm fuzzy when talking about it as I do 
> when talking about eD....
> 
> It seems to me that it would be a *lot* easier to start with a current 
> base system (perhaps LFS based) and then mold it to be whatever it was 
> about eD that everyone liked instead of taking an old eD and upgrading 
> it (remember that eD wasn't even ready for 2.4.x and 2.6.x is right 
> around the corner).
> 
> So, what *specifically* made eD so great?
> 
> -- 
> Tina
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-users mailing list
> Linux-users at linux-sxs.org
> Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc ->
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users


-- 
Matthew Carpenter 
matt at eisgr.com                          http://www.eisgr.com/

Enterprise Information Systems
* Network Service Appliances
* Network Consulting, Integration & Support
* Web Integration and E-Business