Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 17th Dec 2011 00:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 500365
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Puppy is uniquely effective with slow or unreliable internet connections. It manages connections and prompts servers when problems occur. I have a friend who has poor line quality -- and few options, living in a rural area. He runs Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, Windows XP SP3, and Puppy 5. He favors Puppy because of its more reliable internet connectivity."
I was also wondering what this meant.
Unintelligible? Really? 3 clearly labeled entries is unintelligible? There's almost no difference between grub and grub2 when it comes to using the actual menu.
I'm going to agree with the original author on this point - GRUB (legacy) was much better than GRUB2. I tip my hat to the Puppy developers for sticking with the old GRUB. I never understood why it was necessary to make GRUB2 so complicated to configure. Simplicity is bliss.
Edited 2011-12-17 05:43 UTC
GRUB (legacy) was much better than GRUB2
Perhaps but there's little difference when it comes to how the gui works when selecting boot entry. Saying that it is unintelligible is nonsense because menu in grub looks and works pretty much the same way.
If it is cluttered then the same menu would be cluttered in grub.





Member since:
2005-08-18
It does what now? Prompts the *servers*? Some explanation regarding this seemingly fantastical technology might be called for.
Unintelligible? Really? 3 clearly labeled entries is unintelligible? There's almost no difference between grub and grub2 when it comes to using the actual menu.