On 8/22/05, Dave Gutteridge <dave at tokyocomedy.com> wrote: > (Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?") > > >Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows > >2003 server. > > > > > Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm > speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with > current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I > don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes. > > I'm not talking about diffeences in release times. I'm not surprised, > nor bothered, that perhaps some software written for Linux kernel 2.4 > doesn't work on 2.6. > > But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel, then why > shouldn't they both be capable of running the same software? The kernel is only the base that the distro is built on. > I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little > annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards > was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where > stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site > carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was > a reasonable candidate for consumer use. > > But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one > said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing > was said along those lines. MUch more stable, btu that also means not quite as uptodate with the latest that is out there. > Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm > Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors, > *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh, > well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of > purposes". Where was this advice before? > > In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals" > section it says, among other things: > * easy maintenance > * friendly environment for users and package maintainers > Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not > really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to > come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class > OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able > to accomodate? > > So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point, but if I have > to change to another distro and again go through all the growing pains > of learning how to use it as well I think I might run back to Windows > world. I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of reasons, but > I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux for that, that Linux for > this" confusion that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out. > I'm not an expert on dvd::rip, and it may not be that difficult to get working. So don't take this as you can't do it. -- Leonard Isham, CISSP Ostendo non ostento.