Yeah, give it a try - you'll probably be surprised. It really has improved beyond recognition since Fedora 3 (which was a long time ago now).
You'll want to add the rpmfusion repository to your yum config (just a question of downloading and installing an rpm) to get access to stuff that's not in the main Fedora repository. And you'll have to make sure you install yumex - because it doesn't seem to get installed by default, for some weird reason...
I never tried Yggdrasil. The main reason i switched from Slackware to RH was that it was so much less labour intensive doing an installation - but i was less than enthusiastic about having to work with the Sys V init system, which Debian didn't use in those days (dunno about now).
And you've said this twice now too - but you don't seem to want to say what's better about it.
Back in 95 i started out with Slackware - which had a very rudimentary package management system - and moved on to Red Hat some years later. RPM was a big improvement on tar.gz, that's for sure. Some time later, i ran Debian for a while and apt, although complicated, was better than RPM as far as dependency resolution was concerned - but it obviously wasn't that much of a big deal, as i went back to Red Hat later.
For a few years, about 5 years ago, i used synaptic on my Fedora system because it was much better than anything RH/Fedora had. Now i use yumex - which is pretty much the same as Synaptic.
For several years now, i've never had any problems with the Linux system i use daily that are related to package management. It may have been an issue once, but it's a non-issue now.
It's not a question of arguing. I'm just interested in what you think the problem is.
Distrowatch stats aren't relevant. Nobody in their right mind chooses between, say, Fedora and Ubuntu on the basis of their package management system - because it makes no difference to the usability of the operating system.
There are only insignificant differences between Ubuntu and Fedora anyway. People choose between them on the basis of marketing - and Ubuntu's being considerably more aggressively marketed.
[......] there's been a few too many "Year of the Linux desktop" for me to be very convinced.
There's been 13 years of the Linux desktop for me. That's how long i've been using it on the desktop, anyway. For the first couple of years i was dual booting Windows, but i've certainly had at least 10 "years of the Linux desktop".
I've been running Linux as my only desktop for well over a decade now. I've been running it on laptops since 1995. It was better than Windows then and it's still better than Windows.
I use it daily in my work as a web developer - but i do run WinXP in VirtualBox for testing stuff on IE and Safari.
Considering probably considerably less than 1% of internet users have ever even heard of IPv6, i wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to start demanding it.
Dreamweaver sortof sits in this odd intersection of niches that worked 10 years ago but doesn't work so well now.
Yeah, Dreamweaver was Pagemaker for the web. However web layout has only a very superficial resemblance to paper layout - and that resemblance has diminished considerably since Dreamweaver first appeared. Web design isn't really "layout" as such and wysiwyg doesn't really work - cos what you see isn't what someone else gets.
It was a slightly dodgy concept at the outset, but it's well and truly had its day now, i think.
Bluefish has had autocompletion for a few months now (in the unstable versions only, so far) and i love it! It means i can type "po[enter] r[enter]" instead of "position: relative;", etc. It saves a lot of keystrokes.
Yeah, that was the impression i got from a very brief acquaintance with Dreamweaver (watching someone else use it). It would be nice to be able to do some things in a wysiwyg way - and it would save a small amount of time and effort with some types of layout.
But the minor extra convenience wouldn't be enough to get me to spend that amount of money on it - or to make up for having to do all my html work in a Windows virtual machine.
[......] so you don't have to know everything to write anything. [......]
The problem is if you don't know everything (or at least, most of it), and leave what you don't know up to the editor, you'll almost certainly end up with crap code.
Slashdot Mirror
Whale i'll be damned!
Yeah, give it a try - you'll probably be surprised. It really has improved beyond recognition since Fedora 3 (which was a long time ago now).
You'll want to add the rpmfusion repository to your yum config (just a question of downloading and installing an rpm) to get access to stuff that's not in the main Fedora repository. And you'll have to make sure you install yumex - because it doesn't seem to get installed by default, for some weird reason...
I never tried Yggdrasil. The main reason i switched from Slackware to RH was that it was so much less labour intensive doing an installation - but i was less than enthusiastic about having to work with the Sys V init system, which Debian didn't use in those days (dunno about now).
[.....] far superior package management system.
And you've said this twice now too - but you don't seem to want to say what's better about it.
Back in 95 i started out with Slackware - which had a very rudimentary package management system - and moved on to Red Hat some years later. RPM was a big improvement on tar.gz, that's for sure. Some time later, i ran Debian for a while and apt, although complicated, was better than RPM as far as dependency resolution was concerned - but it obviously wasn't that much of a big deal, as i went back to Red Hat later.
For a few years, about 5 years ago, i used synaptic on my Fedora system because it was much better than anything RH/Fedora had. Now i use yumex - which is pretty much the same as Synaptic.
For several years now, i've never had any problems with the Linux system i use daily that are related to package management. It may have been an issue once, but it's a non-issue now.
It's not a question of arguing. I'm just interested in what you think the problem is.
Distrowatch stats aren't relevant. Nobody in their right mind chooses between, say, Fedora and Ubuntu on the basis of their package management system - because it makes no difference to the usability of the operating system.
There are only insignificant differences between Ubuntu and Fedora anyway. People choose between them on the basis of marketing - and Ubuntu's being considerably more aggressively marketed.
[......] there's been a few too many "Year of the Linux desktop" for me to be very convinced.
There's been 13 years of the Linux desktop for me. That's how long i've been using it on the desktop, anyway. For the first couple of years i was dual booting Windows, but i've certainly had at least 10 "years of the Linux desktop".
In what way, exactly? In what way do you see the RPM system holding you back personally?
I very much doubt Ubuntu or Debian can do anything that my Fedora system can't do.
There's very little doubt that apt was better than rpm, but synaptic's not significantly better than yum.
Anyway, it's only a package format - hardly a core part of the Linux system.
I've been running Linux as my only desktop for well over a decade now. I've been running it on laptops since 1995. It was better than Windows then and it's still better than Windows.
I use it daily in my work as a web developer - but i do run WinXP in VirtualBox for testing stuff on IE and Safari.
If you're talking about tnef file attachments, try using ktnef.
Point? No point. Just a bit of idle procrastination. Isn't that what slashdot's for?
Read the post before replying to it???
No. Of course i didn't. What would be the fun in that?
Considering probably considerably less than 1% of internet users have ever even heard of IPv6, i wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to start demanding it.
Derrr... I mean universally implemented. I know it's partially implemented.
I'm beginning to find it hard to believe that IPv6 will ever be implemented. It seems to have been on the verge of it for close to a decade now.
When can i get a Linux version???
All i've got at the moment is CrossOver Chromium v.0.9.0 - which isn't much use really.
It would make more sense to avoid doing things that lead to court summonses, rather than avoiding being on Facebook in case they're served that way!
Yeah, that's how it was when i first learnt HTML in about 95 - pre HTML 2. But it's evolved considerably since those days!
In Bluefish, turning it off is as easy as clicking a box in the preferences dialog.
Obviously not, no!
Yeah, Dreamweaver was Pagemaker for the web. However web layout has only a very superficial resemblance to paper layout - and that resemblance has diminished considerably since Dreamweaver first appeared. Web design isn't really "layout" as such and wysiwyg doesn't really work - cos what you see isn't what someone else gets.
It was a slightly dodgy concept at the outset, but it's well and truly had its day now, i think.
Bluefish has had autocompletion for a few months now (in the unstable versions only, so far) and i love it! It means i can type "po[enter] r[enter]" instead of "position: relative;", etc. It saves a lot of keystrokes.
That's why there are a zillion crap web sites out there!
I'd hope so. Even Bluefish does code completion now (Bluefish unstable v1.3.4) - and it's very handy, too!
Yeah, that was the impression i got from a very brief acquaintance with Dreamweaver (watching someone else use it). It would be nice to be able to do some things in a wysiwyg way - and it would save a small amount of time and effort with some types of layout.
But the minor extra convenience wouldn't be enough to get me to spend that amount of money on it - or to make up for having to do all my html work in a Windows virtual machine.
The problem is if you don't know everything (or at least, most of it), and leave what you don't know up to the editor, you'll almost certainly end up with crap code.
I can't see why you'd need CMYK for the web...