Yeppers. Order Digital Cable (It's about 3$ more per month). Then tune to channel 990 for Video on Demand (or channel 999 to order pizzas from Pizza Hut):)
I've had digital cable for about 2 years or so here in Hawai'i - And we've had video on demand at least that long. In the beginning the selection was small and quality would sometimes degrade during 'prime time.' But for the last year or so quality has been perfect, and selection has steadily increased (To about 200 movies, usually 5-10 new movies every 2 weeks or so).
Not doubled, but 64% inflation. What was worth a dollar in 1980 was worth 1.64$ in 1990.
I might also mention that in the period 1990-2000 (The 'horrible Clinton years', for the most part) the CPI went from:
CPI in 1990: 127.4
CPI in 2000: 168.8
Okay...that's just rediculous:). Whatever memory is curently being used most frequently stays in physical memory. Whatever is being used most infrequently stays in swap. Simple as that.
And if you're already using swap space when you first boot up your computer, I might seriously recommend you invest the 30$ for some more memory:P
The political left has
adopted the convention of arguing that the beneficial economic changes in the 1980s--the conquering of inflation,
the surge in employment, and the sustained economic expansion...
The conquering of inflation is my favorite part. The Cato Institute has evidently forgotten the _Arab Oil Embargo_ and other instabilities in the oil market in that period. Inflation went down as a -direct result- of a drop in the price of oil (From 40$/barrel in 1981 to 10$/barrel in 1985. Now I'll grant you that Reagan helped bring oil prices down, but is it really that hard to do when the price is that high through the roof?
Employment is also another fun topic. When Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 6.5%. 3 years later, it hit a peak in at 10.8%. It was during this period that unemployment was at it's worst level since the great depression. When he left office, it was down to 5.7%. Okay for the 1980s-1990s (Reagan) period, but nothing stunning. I might mention that when Bush took over, the unemployment rate rose right back up to a high of 7.8%. During the Clinton Years, it fell steadily to a low of 3.9%, the lowest since 1969. The Cato Institutes take on employment is nothing short of a flat-out, bold-faced lie.
Sustained economic expansion...Let's remeber none of this is adjusted for inflation.
In the period 1980-1988, the gross domestic product rose from 2.7 trillion to just under 5 trillion. However, in the period 1972-1980, GDP rose, hold your breath, from 1.1 trillion to 2.7 trillion. In the period 1964-1972, it rose from 650 billion to 1.1 trillion. In the period 1988-1992 it rose from 5 trillion to 6.1 trillion. From 1992-2000, it rose from 6.1 trillion to 10 trillion. Are you sensing a pattern here?
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during
the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
I really love this, because it's so clear how far the Cato institute is willing to go to stress the point their trying to make. As everyone knows, economic changes are inherently slow. As such, it can take a period of 2-3 years for legislation/tax code to be reflected by the economy. So the Bush-Clinton years the paper is citing could more aptly be described the Reagan-Bush economic period. In the period 1995-2000 (The true Clinton years, for which I have data) GDP went from 7.2 trillion to 10 trillion. About 28%. Divide that by 6, and you get 4.8% economic growth. (Hence the numbers we have all become used to seeing on the news, up until late).
It's late here, and I don't feel up to reading the Cato paper in it's entirety (In fact, I never got past the introduction.) In any event, I think I've made my point.
Certainly so, but the argument that was made at the time was that by providing a massive tax-cut, the extra money in the economy would 'trickle down' spurring new economic growth. That new growth would then increase tax revenue. So the argument was that we could cut taxes, and keep spending the same way.
Obviously (To me at least) that doesn't add up. If it did, then why not take it to it's logical conclusions - Cut taxes to 1%. For simple calculations sake (As it seems I'm having trouble with my calculations:), let's assume tax revenue is 1 trillion dollars, at a rate of 25% (4 trillion GDP). If you were to cut taxes by 10%, you would be cutting tax revenue by 400 billion. To recoup that revenue without raising taxes, the economy would then have to grow by 2.667 billion dollars (More than 60%!).
So yes, of course spending is what caused the debt. I make no argument that we aren;t over spending. My only argument is that massive tax cuts without massive spending cuts wil never work.
Well I feel a little bit sheepish. My calculations were definitely fubar:) Like I said, I'm not an expert on the economy:P
In any event, using your CPI numbers (Or the governments, however you want to look at it), lets assume inflation is 3.86%. 1.0386^8 = 1.40. 1982 Tax Revenue = 632240505595 * 1.40 = 885136707833. 1990 Tax Revenue = 1056365651631. Total difference = $171,228,943,798. Divide that by a 9 year period, and you get an average annual increase in revenues of $19,025,438,199.78 (Unless my calculations are wrong again (Though I did use a calculator this time).
Could you explain to me how that increase (Which I would argue we would have seen anyway) is worth over a trillion dollars increase in government debt?
Perhaps I should have used a different word, as you're certainly right. I meant unilateral more than isolationist. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ride camp cares half-heartedly what the rest of the world thinks. They have an "Our way or the highway" attitude towards foreign policy.
Powell on the other hand sees the value of doing things with international support, even if that means doing some things differently (Or some things not at all).
It's a farily simply equation. I formulate my own opinions:)
Here's the hard facts:
Total tax revenue in 1980: $519,375,273
Total tax revenue in 1990: $1,056,365,652Inflation for the period 1980-1990: 55% (5% annual average)
1,056,365,652 *.55 = 581,001,059.
581,001,059 - 519,375,273 = 61,625,786
61,625,786 / 11 = 5,602,344
So congratulations Ronald Reagan. Tax revenue increased an annual average of 1%/year for the period 1980-1990. Was it worth over a trillion dollars in government debt though?
The Cato Institute, btw, is transparently evil, funded by large business with inherent alterior motives. I would rather trust Gore:P
While I suffer no illusions of Democrats always telling the truth, they did get it right with this issue.
You see, it's not that much of a cut and dry issue. My knowledge of it is not "absolutely wrong". In fact, it wasn't wrong at all.
Federal Tax Revenue did indeed double in the 1980-1990 period. I would be afraid if it hadn't! The US was just coming off the Arab Oil Embargo, which helped to pop the US annual inflation rate upto 12%. While it didn't stay that high for long, it did hover at an average of about 5% for that entire period. if A1=100, A2=105...Then in 1990, what was worth 100$ in 1980 was now only worth only 45$. So if tax revenues didn't double in that 10 year period, we would actually be taking in less in real terms than we were 10 years earlier. As it was, we just barely took in the same ammount. Indeed, in the initial period after the tax cut, tax revenue declined. Not until 1994 did we take in more money, in real terms, than we did in 1980.
So you see, I was not wrong. The Government did burden itself with over a/trillion dollars/ in debt during that period. Tax revenues did/not/ increase in real terms as a result of that tax cut. There/was/ a reason people laughed at Reagonomics. And no, I/don't/ need to "reexamine some of my other beliefs, which are most likely erroneous as well."
However, maybe you should heed your own advice. You seem to have very strong opinions, and expect people to believe them simply by insulting others, and being generally mean spirited:P I for one don't buy it, and I suspect others in your life don't either.
The entire argument is somewhat pointless I think, though, seeing as how we actually agree with each other. I believe the US Government would be completely right to invade Afghanistan with massive and overwhelming force. I don't buy the argument that the Taliban would draw us into a war similar to that fought by the Russians. After all, in that war they were supported by the US. In this war, they won't even have fuel to fight us, as 80% of their fuel comes from Pakistan, and Pakistan has now agreed to stop supplying them with food, aid, fuel and weapons. I think they would most likely run at the sight of us.
Funny, neither you nor I are military experts. Why don't you leave the doomsaying until you actually have a fucking clue what is going on and what the results are?
Yes, yes, of course you're right. Because I'm not an expert on the military, I shouldn't let my opinions be known. I should just trust my government to do the 'right thing.' They always do, of course. And because I'm not an expert on economics, I should probably not mention that I think a massive tax cut to stimulate the economy, so we can collect even more taxes in the future, is probably not the best of ideas. I mean, we didn't rack up massive government debt in the 1982-1992 period because of that or anything. The government experts always know best.
I mean, what were those Vietnam war protesters thinking? Of course the war was winnable! We belonged in there dropping napalm on those commie villager bastards! I mean, the US Government experts always know best, and the rest of us should just shut the hell up.
Thankfully, I tore up my draft registration when it came and haven't heard another word since. My father was a Canadian citizen, which also allows me the privilege of dual US-Canadian citizenship. Rux0r!
Actually, I think we should remove the Taliban from power. I think they're a bunch of SCARY FUCKERS too. I would fully support any effort to remove the Taliban. I wouldn't risk/my/ life doing it, but if others braver than myself feel up to it, all the power to them.
The Guardian in London reported Friday, citing a cable from the US Embassy in London, that the US was trying to rally an international campaign to remove the Taliban. Having removed them, we would then sponsor a UN-run temporary government in the nation.
Indeed, reports abound that within the administration there is a battle going on. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice camp wants a full-scale, no holds bar invasion of Afghanistan -AND- Iraq. The Powell camp wants to take a one-bite-at-a-time approach to the whole thing.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear. On the contrary, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice (Who by all accounts is treated like a daughter by Bush) are running Defense and Foreign Policy. Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.
The US now has three battlegroups in the region or on the way. Another deployment is expected to be signed by Rumsfeld later today or tomorrow. 35,000 reservists have been called up. More maybe called up later. Make no mistake about it, the US/IS/ going to, attempt at least, to remove the Taliban from power. Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government. Get ready for a long drawn out war:P
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush announced today in Washington that there was no longer any need to delve into the Social Security and Medicare surplus. During a press conference at the White House, President Bush said "After carefully studying the behavior of Microsoft, we have determined it to be a terrorist organization. As such, I have instructed the US Office of Foreign Asset Control to seize all assets of Microsoft, and it's founders, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Balmer."
The seized assets are expexted to top 150 billion dollars, more than enough to pull the US out from the hole dug by the Bush administrations massive tax cuts.
Re:Implications for alpha?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 2
Let's not forget SPARC:)
Re:Will HP support linux like Compaq has?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 2
Welp, with Bruce Perens whispering in Carly's ear, I suspect they will:)
Mirroring is perfectly appropriate. As it stands, I am already unable to reach SDForum. Let's not moderate this to +5 Informatie, but by the same token, let's not send it to a -1 Redundant grave.
My point was that you/do/ have to go through it. You can cancel out of the configuration wizards, but I dislike the fact that it asks me to configure everything.
And it wasn't an argument against using Mandrake. As I said, I'm sure many people like it. I was just offering my/opinion/ that I don't like it:P
Yes. There is. You/can/ choose not to configure a printer or whatnot in the expert install, but my point was merely that I find it somewhat annoying that it even/asks/ me. After all, how does it know what I want to configure and what I don't? Why not ask me to configure something when I actually want to use it? (A la deb-conf).
Well, I haven't installed 8.0/8.1 at all. But in 7.2 you had no choice. In the expert install. You could deselect the packages in the expert install, but at the end of the installation, it configures X. It gives you three options. XFree86 3.3.6, XFree86 4, or XFree86 4 w/ Hardware 3d Acceleration. You have to choose one. When you choose one, it installs the packages anyway. Even if you already deselected them all in the initial package selection.
If you could explain to me how to get around that, I'm all ears:P
I think you misunderstood my point:) I wasn't flat out saying they shouldn't configure everything in the install. I was just saying I'm not sure it's the best approach. Personally, I prefer the simpler approach simply because it's faster. I may not/want/ to install X-windows on a router. With Mandrake, however, I don't have a choice. I may not/want/ to configure a printer on a nameserver, but again I have to w/ Mandrake.
The list goes on.
We use Mandrake on all of our desktops at work. It's worked well there. At home, however, I prefer Debian. I don't find that I'm constantly fucking with it. In fact, I find I have fewer problems with Debian than I do with Mandrake.
Debian is by no means a bitch to install. It has an extremely simple menu-based install that I can go through in about 5 minutes. It takes half an hour to do a Mandrake install though.
To each his own though. Mandrake has it's place. As do all the other distributions (Except Caldera. They're evil.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's all well and good for Netscape and Explorer. But you might have some trouble 'talking back' after your kernel deadlocks:P
Yeppers. Order Digital Cable (It's about 3$ more per month). Then tune to channel 990 for Video on Demand (or channel 999 to order pizzas from Pizza Hut) :)
I've had digital cable for about 2 years or so here in Hawai'i - And we've had video on demand at least that long. In the beginning the selection was small and quality would sometimes degrade during 'prime time.' But for the last year or so quality has been perfect, and selection has steadily increased (To about 200 movies, usually 5-10 new movies every 2 weeks or so).
This is an insanely cool project. Oh how I wish assembly didn't frighten me:P
CPI in 1980: 77.8
CPI in 1990: 127.4
Not doubled, but 64% inflation. What was worth a dollar in 1980 was worth 1.64$ in 1990.
I might also mention that in the period 1990-2000 (The 'horrible Clinton years', for the most part) the CPI went from:
CPI in 1990: 127.4
CPI in 2000: 168.8
Only 41% inflation. Interesting.
Okay...that's just rediculous:). Whatever memory is curently being used most frequently stays in physical memory. Whatever is being used most infrequently stays in swap. Simple as that.
And if you're already using swap space when you first boot up your computer, I might seriously recommend you invest the 30$ for some more memory:P
Okay, I'll skim over it a bit. Where to begin:
The political left has
adopted the convention of arguing that the beneficial economic changes in the 1980s--the conquering of inflation,
the surge in employment, and the sustained economic expansion...
The conquering of inflation is my favorite part. The Cato Institute has evidently forgotten the _Arab Oil Embargo_ and other instabilities in the oil market in that period. Inflation went down as a -direct result- of a drop in the price of oil (From 40$/barrel in 1981 to 10$/barrel in 1985. Now I'll grant you that Reagan helped bring oil prices down, but is it really that hard to do when the price is that high through the roof?
Employment is also another fun topic. When Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 6.5%. 3 years later, it hit a peak in at 10.8%. It was during this period that unemployment was at it's worst level since the great depression. When he left office, it was down to 5.7%. Okay for the 1980s-1990s (Reagan) period, but nothing stunning. I might mention that when Bush took over, the unemployment rate rose right back up to a high of 7.8%. During the Clinton Years, it fell steadily to a low of 3.9%, the lowest since 1969. The Cato Institutes take on employment is nothing short of a flat-out, bold-faced lie.
Sustained economic expansion...Let's remeber none of this is adjusted for inflation.
In the period 1980-1988, the gross domestic product rose from 2.7 trillion to just under 5 trillion. However, in the period 1972-1980, GDP rose, hold your breath, from 1.1 trillion to 2.7 trillion. In the period 1964-1972, it rose from 650 billion to 1.1 trillion. In the period 1988-1992 it rose from 5 trillion to 6.1 trillion. From 1992-2000, it rose from 6.1 trillion to 10 trillion. Are you sensing a pattern here?
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during
the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
I really love this, because it's so clear how far the Cato institute is willing to go to stress the point their trying to make. As everyone knows, economic changes are inherently slow. As such, it can take a period of 2-3 years for legislation/tax code to be reflected by the economy. So the Bush-Clinton years the paper is citing could more aptly be described the Reagan-Bush economic period. In the period 1995-2000 (The true Clinton years, for which I have data) GDP went from 7.2 trillion to 10 trillion. About 28%. Divide that by 6, and you get 4.8% economic growth. (Hence the numbers we have all become used to seeing on the news, up until late).
It's late here, and I don't feel up to reading the Cato paper in it's entirety (In fact, I never got past the introduction.) In any event, I think I've made my point.
Certainly so, but the argument that was made at the time was that by providing a massive tax-cut, the extra money in the economy would 'trickle down' spurring new economic growth. That new growth would then increase tax revenue. So the argument was that we could cut taxes, and keep spending the same way.
Obviously (To me at least) that doesn't add up. If it did, then why not take it to it's logical conclusions - Cut taxes to 1%. For simple calculations sake (As it seems I'm having trouble with my calculations:), let's assume tax revenue is 1 trillion dollars, at a rate of 25% (4 trillion GDP). If you were to cut taxes by 10%, you would be cutting tax revenue by 400 billion. To recoup that revenue without raising taxes, the economy would then have to grow by 2.667 billion dollars (More than 60%!).
So yes, of course spending is what caused the debt. I make no argument that we aren;t over spending. My only argument is that massive tax cuts without massive spending cuts wil never work.
Well I feel a little bit sheepish. My calculations were definitely fubar:) Like I said, I'm not an expert on the economy:P
In any event, using your CPI numbers (Or the governments, however you want to look at it), lets assume inflation is 3.86%. 1.0386^8 = 1.40. 1982 Tax Revenue = 632240505595 * 1.40 = 885136707833. 1990 Tax Revenue = 1056365651631. Total difference = $171,228,943,798. Divide that by a 9 year period, and you get an average annual increase in revenues of $19,025,438,199.78 (Unless my calculations are wrong again (Though I did use a calculator this time).
Could you explain to me how that increase (Which I would argue we would have seen anyway) is worth over a trillion dollars increase in government debt?
Perhaps I should have used a different word, as you're certainly right. I meant unilateral more than isolationist. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ride camp cares half-heartedly what the rest of the world thinks. They have an "Our way or the highway" attitude towards foreign policy.
Powell on the other hand sees the value of doing things with international support, even if that means doing some things differently (Or some things not at all).
It's a farily simply equation. I formulate my own opinions:)
.55 = 581,001,059.
Here's the hard facts:
Total tax revenue in 1980: $519,375,273
Total tax revenue in 1990: $1,056,365,652Inflation for the period 1980-1990: 55% (5% annual average)
1,056,365,652 *
581,001,059 - 519,375,273 = 61,625,786
61,625,786 / 11 = 5,602,344
So congratulations Ronald Reagan. Tax revenue increased an annual average of 1%/year for the period 1980-1990. Was it worth over a trillion dollars in government debt though?
The Cato Institute, btw, is transparently evil, funded by large business with inherent alterior motives. I would rather trust Gore:P
While I suffer no illusions of Democrats always telling the truth, they did get it right with this issue.
/trillion dollars/ in debt during that period. Tax revenues did /not/ increase in real terms as a result of that tax cut. There /was/ a reason people laughed at Reagonomics. And no, I /don't/ need to "reexamine some of my other beliefs, which are most likely erroneous as well."
You see, it's not that much of a cut and dry issue. My knowledge of it is not "absolutely wrong". In fact, it wasn't wrong at all.
Federal Tax Revenue did indeed double in the 1980-1990 period. I would be afraid if it hadn't! The US was just coming off the Arab Oil Embargo, which helped to pop the US annual inflation rate upto 12%. While it didn't stay that high for long, it did hover at an average of about 5% for that entire period. if A1=100, A2=105...Then in 1990, what was worth 100$ in 1980 was now only worth only 45$. So if tax revenues didn't double in that 10 year period, we would actually be taking in less in real terms than we were 10 years earlier. As it was, we just barely took in the same ammount. Indeed, in the initial period after the tax cut, tax revenue declined. Not until 1994 did we take in more money, in real terms, than we did in 1980.
All of this information is available at the IRS website. Here's an Excel spreadsheet with tax collections for the period 1970-1999.
So you see, I was not wrong. The Government did burden itself with over a
However, maybe you should heed your own advice. You seem to have very strong opinions, and expect people to believe them simply by insulting others, and being generally mean spirited:P I for one don't buy it, and I suspect others in your life don't either.
The entire argument is somewhat pointless I think, though, seeing as how we actually agree with each other. I believe the US Government would be completely right to invade Afghanistan with massive and overwhelming force. I don't buy the argument that the Taliban would draw us into a war similar to that fought by the Russians. After all, in that war they were supported by the US. In this war, they won't even have fuel to fight us, as 80% of their fuel comes from Pakistan, and Pakistan has now agreed to stop supplying them with food, aid, fuel and weapons. I think they would most likely run at the sight of us.
Anyway, that's my whole rant.
Perhaps you were thinking of Some other cemetery?
Arlington National Cemetery Certainly has no white-crosses:)
Funny, neither you nor I are military experts. Why don't you leave the doomsaying until you actually have a fucking clue what is going on and what the results are?
Yes, yes, of course you're right. Because I'm not an expert on the military, I shouldn't let my opinions be known. I should just trust my government to do the 'right thing.' They always do, of course. And because I'm not an expert on economics, I should probably not mention that I think a massive tax cut to stimulate the economy, so we can collect even more taxes in the future, is probably not the best of ideas. I mean, we didn't rack up massive government debt in the 1982-1992 period because of that or anything. The government experts always know best.
I mean, what were those Vietnam war protesters thinking? Of course the war was winnable! We belonged in there dropping napalm on those commie villager bastards! I mean, the US Government experts always know best, and the rest of us should just shut the hell up.
Or then again, mayne not.
Thankfully, I tore up my draft registration when it came and haven't heard another word since. My father was a Canadian citizen, which also allows me the privilege of dual US-Canadian citizenship. Rux0r!
Actually, I think we should remove the Taliban from power. I think they're a bunch of SCARY FUCKERS too. I would fully support any effort to remove the Taliban. I wouldn't risk /my/ life doing it, but if others braver than myself feel up to it, all the power to them.
The Guardian in London reported Friday, citing a cable from the US Embassy in London, that the US was trying to rally an international campaign to remove the Taliban. Having removed them, we would then sponsor a UN-run temporary government in the nation.
/IS/ going to, attempt at least, to remove the Taliban from power. Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government. Get ready for a long drawn out war:P
Indeed, reports abound that within the administration there is a battle going on. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice camp wants a full-scale, no holds bar invasion of Afghanistan -AND- Iraq. The Powell camp wants to take a one-bite-at-a-time approach to the whole thing.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear. On the contrary, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice (Who by all accounts is treated like a daughter by Bush) are running Defense and Foreign Policy. Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.
The US now has three battlegroups in the region or on the way. Another deployment is expected to be signed by Rumsfeld later today or tomorrow. 35,000 reservists have been called up. More maybe called up later. Make no mistake about it, the US
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush announced today in Washington that there was no longer any need to delve into the Social Security and Medicare surplus. During a press conference at the White House, President Bush said "After carefully studying the behavior of Microsoft, we have determined it to be a terrorist organization. As such, I have instructed the US Office of Foreign Asset Control to seize all assets of Microsoft, and it's founders, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Balmer."
The seized assets are expexted to top 150 billion dollars, more than enough to pull the US out from the hole dug by the Bush administrations massive tax cuts.
Let's not forget SPARC:)
Welp, with Bruce Perens whispering in Carly's ear, I suspect they will:)
Mirroring is perfectly appropriate. As it stands, I am already unable to reach SDForum. Let's not moderate this to +5 Informatie, but by the same token, let's not send it to a -1 Redundant grave.
My point was that you /do/ have to go through it. You can cancel out of the configuration wizards, but I dislike the fact that it asks me to configure everything.
/opinion/ that I don't like it:P
And it wasn't an argument against using Mandrake. As I said, I'm sure many people like it. I was just offering my
Yes. There is. You /can/ choose not to configure a printer or whatnot in the expert install, but my point was merely that I find it somewhat annoying that it even /asks/ me. After all, how does it know what I want to configure and what I don't? Why not ask me to configure something when I actually want to use it? (A la deb-conf).
Well, I haven't installed 8.0/8.1 at all. But in 7.2 you had no choice. In the expert install. You could deselect the packages in the expert install, but at the end of the installation, it configures X. It gives you three options. XFree86 3.3.6, XFree86 4, or XFree86 4 w/ Hardware 3d Acceleration. You have to choose one. When you choose one, it installs the packages anyway. Even if you already deselected them all in the initial package selection.
If you could explain to me how to get around that, I'm all ears:P
I think you misunderstood my point:) I wasn't flat out saying they shouldn't configure everything in the install. I was just saying I'm not sure it's the best approach. Personally, I prefer the simpler approach simply because it's faster. I may not /want/ to install X-windows on a router. With Mandrake, however, I don't have a choice. I may not /want/ to configure a printer on a nameserver, but again I have to w/ Mandrake.
The list goes on.
We use Mandrake on all of our desktops at work. It's worked well there. At home, however, I prefer Debian. I don't find that I'm constantly fucking with it. In fact, I find I have fewer problems with Debian than I do with Mandrake.
Debian is by no means a bitch to install. It has an extremely simple menu-based install that I can go through in about 5 minutes. It takes half an hour to do a Mandrake install though.
To each his own though. Mandrake has it's place. As do all the other distributions (Except Caldera. They're evil.)