Richard Rauch wrote:
> 
> FWIW, Linda:
> 
> You implied that you were using prebuilt packages, and only as a last
> resort installed from pkgsrc.

Yeah, I was trying to get away without compiling.  I wanted to install 
in less than a day, not the three+ it ended up taking.  The compiling 
alone took 36 hours, and I had to check it periodically to be sure it 
hadn't barfed *again*.  I didn't get much sleep.

> I long ago gave up on binary packages.  I've found that they have defaults
> compiled in (defaults that I don't care for), or even sometimes have weird
> dependancy mis-matches.  Building from source solved those problems.  I've
> never looked back.

I probably won't either, but I had to try it...

> I do have KDE installed on a system, with pkgsrc SUP'ed around the first
> week of December.  You might try using CVS to synch your pkgsrc to that
> date, and then *build* all of your packages from scratch.  (Yes, that can
> take a while.  But I have KDE installed and running from that.)  You can
> probably pick most other pkgsrc dates as well, though I have hit periods
> of ``outtages'' for complex packages like KDE.

Hmmmm.  How do I "SUP" to a given date?  I use ssh to get my anonymous 
CVS updates.  I know that when I did it the week before Christmas, 
there were a couple packages in the KDE bundle that wouldn't compile, 
and I had to install a precompiled package to do an end run around it.

> I used to SUP pkgsrc on a regular basis, but after rebuilding all and
> sundry for the Nth time because some program clammored for a 3rd-tier
> version update to libpng, I largely stopped tracking pkgsrc.  Now I only
> update pkgsrc if I'm updating everything anyway, or if I really need
> something from a fresher version of pkgsrc.

Aaagh!  Although watching stuff compile can be fun, it is a real 
problem when you are on a shared computer, and the other person wants 
to get their email... 

> However, having kept KDE and GNOME installed on my machine for some little
> time, my opinion is: They are monsters.  (^&

Amen.  They eat resources, take forever to compile, and that's not 
happy.

> I only casually/experimentally use them for myself.  Although I've never
> professionally administered systems, I'd be leary of putting either KDE or
> GNOME up on a system that I was paid to administer.  I think that the rest
> of the system would be okay, but I'd probably never hear the end of
> complaints about this-or-that not working in KDE or GNOME.

Yet I've had KDE installs that worked fine.  The previous system that 
I put it on didn't even twitch!

> (If I had to put one or the other up, I'd go with KDE, though.  It's
> proven more stable.  Also, the main value that these things seem to have
> is that they more or less emulate MS-WINDOWS.  KDE does a better job of
> that; GNOME's had a strong visual appeal early on, but has lost much of
> that without gaining much anywhere else.)

My desire is for a windowing system that is a little more attractive 
and configurable than plain X.  I need to be able to get users up and 
running on it *fast*, and not get a lot of "how do I..." questions 
about common things.

>   ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu

*grin*  I feel like that some days...

					Linda
-- 
Linda J Laubenheimer - UNIX Geek, Sysadmin, Bibliophile and Iconoclast
http://www.modusvarious.net/ - consultants available
http://www.laubenheimer.net/ - personal demo site
http://www.geocities.com/laubenheimer/ - web design gaffes (I wouldn't 
disgrace a real ISP with these) and rants about bad design.