anyone have/tried Mandriva 2005?

[Net Llama!]

On 05/14/2005 11:48 AM, Michael Hipp wrote:
> I don't think David is spreading FUD, but neither is it quite as bad as 
> it once was. Here is what I found to be repeatably true (*before* RH9):

Before RH9 is still quite a long time ago on the Linux evolutionary scale.

> - Outside of what shipped on the disks, there was little s/w available 
> for RH systems in RPM form (that worked, anyway).

I think that depends on what you were looking for.  That was never my 
experience, and I was responsible for a handfull of RH-7.x boxen for 
quite a while.

> - Attempting to install an RPM that did not come on the RH disks almost 
> always had "unmeetable" dependencies.

Again, depends on the RPM.

> - When it had an unmet dependency it give useless information like 
> "missing lib.so.6.3-546.38.99" rather than "this package depends on this 
> other package". The latter is solvable, the former isn't.

That was true.

> - Attempting to compile from source would fail for 90% of the stuff on 
> Sourceforge/Freshmeat.

That's a bit of an over generalization, and not something that I 
experienced very often.

> - The other repositories never seemed to have what I wanted or it was 
> not compiled for my RH version. Even then, it often didn't work as expected.
> 
> This all somehow/someway got a *lot* better with the arrival of RH9. 
> Don't ask me what changed. And now RH/FC appears to have latched onto 
> the idea of a software repository.
> 
> RH/FC still has the unbearable problem that distro upgrades must be done 
> with "disk in hand" and with the system shut down rather than "online 
> and in-place".

Technically, sure, but i know of folks who have done a FC upgrade 
"online and in place" and lived to tell about it.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
LlamaLand		 		http://netllama.linux-sxs.org

  12:50:01 up 32 days, 23:03,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00