On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Thomas Mondoshawan Tate wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:19:26PM -0400, Nigel Sollars wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Thomas Mondoshawan Tate wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:14:45PM -0700, Richard L. Proctor wrote:
> > > > Just out of Curiosity which distrobution of Linux do you prefer and what
> > > > makes it better in your opinion?
> > > 
> > > My own brew. Although technicially it's Linux From Scratch, but I've made so
> > > many changes to it I'd hardly call it such. The reason: less bloat, less
> > > dependencies, it runs what I want and not what the creators want, and
> > > upgrading portions of the system isn't as time consuming as it would be
> > > under a package based system. Eg: if I need to update libc, all I have to do
> > > is download, ./configure, make, make install, and I'm done -- no broken
> > > dependencies anywhere. Albeit, this kind of distro is not for those with
> > > heart conditions or those who are new to Linux since it's source-level
> > > "package management" feature requires a pretty heavy understanding of how
> > > the packages fit together.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Dunno if its just me but isnt this Slackware?? hehe 
> > 
> > besides the mini sparc release is awesome too we had it running back in
> > the UK on a sparc IPX 40Mhz took 3.5 days to build XFree hehehe well worth
> > the time though :)
> > 
> > Regards 
> > 
> > Nigel
> 
> I suppose it could be considered as such, yes. Still, Slackware is built for
> i386 systems and up, is it not? Since you build all of the base packages
> yourself, you can set the options and the CPU to compile for, etc.
> 
> *shrugs*
> It's all a matter of taste, really. =op
> 

agreed and yes i usually build agains I686 using pentiumpro optimisations
where possable..
>