[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/slitaz Archives
]
- To: slitaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Slitaz vs DSL
- From: Brenton Edgar Scott <trixarian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:50:51 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eBTYggGKZTvgawIb4W4mfqf+oqC00LszlVxE4x+0jEU=; b=rpYQRkIGMfM52m2Ddc13G3vuNxZNuiNwHSVRhaydAJGZGxC+i3cy3eKFP7jenAkWU8 LLPpLEZC7Km+XMm+lLUpKeYFcasd50faDJOCGT/CBuoU97qjWEPuK8VznFi9sgmFEdbk L3Egj8ZqVeJm5uIvjOLbCMlWi5Y868PvDqXHCdnf2M7xSQc6iQLnfqy66QEHM9BiiC1f iR9pZhZ+E09yoOsy4VS212M/6ez1v9G6bkEm48L7pjeFjNJS4ZlxZMdWZWH8I+3JnaL3 ycH+u0rT2gpqFirtx7Pr85A90F+4kmaZgiadCHWeZfZxmVRDZ6jcfDvHpRLfltGScGrE tuTg==
*Sigh* This is like comparing Ubuntu to Arch and equally productive.
DSL had Debian as an back-end and it's developers didn't have to lift a
finger to fix half the issues we have to. Modern these days is using a
properly configured xorg that automatically generates the configuration
every boot and a system that uses udev exclusively (and left HAL
behind). 99% of the libraries DSL used has bloated a big and probably
tripped in size by now. The playing field isn't even anymore. This is
half why I get so pissed off when people compare SliTaz with other
distros. I think the only fair comparison would be TinyCore and then
only barely. Puppy had years to adapt to the proper way of doing
things, it's creator is pretty clued up and with it's current large
user/developer base it's pretty up to date. Arch has the same advantage
and all the others are based on some pretty distros. We don't have that
luxury and we're still learning.
So please instead of comparing or complaining, rather use that energy
into helping us conform the standards and teaching us how to use xorg,
the linux kernel and udev effectively.
--
SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/