Bob Hoffman wrote:
This is a continuation of the thread about redhat vs centos and the thought of moving from centos due to redhats new business model. Forgive the length, but I had to share.
Thank you, very much, for the details (not that I was planning on going to ubuntu...)
Two things: <snip>
2- uses a really lame 1980 DOS version of a text installer. It does not and will not use a basic vid driver install which means your setting up of lvms and such during the install is really fun.
What's wrong with text mode? I certainly prefer it. Oh, and those menus came along 2-3 years later.... <g> <snip>
6- uses upstart and init, mixed up a bit. Upstart, BY DESIGN AND ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTATION is new and still being built so they do not want to put any documentation out on it yet. This makes chkconfig and things like that useless. Hence, if you want to know what is running, set to run, etc, you need to dig in multiple folders and read the scripts. There is no other way. What a horror.
Yes. Just like the grub ubuntu uses, that is a bloody script, and a .d directory *full* of files, rather than the clean, simple menu with RHEL/CentOS. <snip>
I don't want to have to read scripts to find out how to configure something, or make it do something. A README, at the very least, should have that (not "here's the license, go figure out everything else).
From what I've been reading on /., along with gnome 3 and "unity", that
wing of the F/OSS movement, presumably in an effort to go head-to-head with M$ and Apple, are going the same way they are: here's how you do it, don't try to do it any other way, and we'll make it *REALLY* hard to do it any other way.
mark