David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some things (like diskdrake) really don't work at all in text mode. Maybe
fewer features is understandable as in fewer bells and whistles, but the
software still needs to be able to perform its basic functions in text
mode.
wait and see :)
On 12 Aug 2001 23:10:09 +0200, Pixel wrote:
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some things (like diskdrake) really don't work at all in text mode. Maybe
fewer features is understandable as in fewer bells and whistles, but the
software still needs to be able to perform its basic
First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They haven't
got a good security update system ,
the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag them
as unstable . The main reason to have a firewall
is security and not a nice graphical interface.
Debian for
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 04:46:09PM +0200, Marco Wesselgren wrote:
First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They haven't
got a good security update system ,
the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag them
as unstable . The main reason to have
PS : for the other vision of minimal, that is No X, no apps,
hardware
support, and newt version of the drak tools,
I wish text mode drakxtools really work :-(
During the bombing raid on Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:34:23 +0200 (CEST), Pixel was
heard mumbling in fear:
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS: criticizing Emacs (and XEmacs) is risky business!
It's not only risky, it's blasphemy! :P
Vox,
--
Pain is the gift of the
On Friday 10 August 2001 01:15 pm, you wrote:
Hmmm, perhaps time to take a couple steps back and look at the issue from a
fresh angle.
vi is just as newbie-vicious as emacs, with its two modes and such.
Should we be looking at a minimal install for a newbie or should we be
installing a
Ainsi parlait Guillaume Cottenceau :
Marco Wesselgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They
haven't got a good security update system ,
the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag
them as unstable . The
On 10 Aug 2001, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS : for the other vision of minimal, that is No X, no apps,
hardware
support, and newt version of the drak tools,
I wish text mode drakxtools really work :-(
Report bugs.
I do. See another
I'm not claiming that Mandrake are insecure , just saying that there are
more secure systems.
Let's take two other operating system that are in general secure and
compare them to Mandrake
The first one Debian
Debian releases packages in two groups Stable and Unstable , Stable has been
tested
on 8/9/01 12:52 AM, David Walluck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Terrible Tom wrote:
My vote is for the minimal porn station
We'd best not vote on this unless we want it to end up in the
distribution, as I'm sure you're not the only one who wants this g
As much as I'd
Ainsi parlait Pixel :
the pb is not to provide it. The pb is isn't it too powerful?. There's is
already 2 simple ways to have minimal install:
- unselect XFree86-libs
- load from floppy an empty file
I could be wrong, but as installer doesn't ask confirmation for X
configuration now, X get
(This message seems lost -- I repost a better version)
Thierry Vignaud wrote:
we do offer a lot of choice (this is a free world); that
is different than being a fat/slow distro.
Thanks for your message. I understand your point of view. That's a good
start.
My original idea about the
(This message seems lost -- I repost it for the third time :()
Thierry Vignaud wrote:
we do offer a lot of choice (this is a free world); that
is different than being a fat/slow distro.
Thanks for your message. I understand your point of view. That's a good
start.
My original idea about
Just remember to make it newt and cmdline urpmi and such, that is the whole point of
this thread from start.
Yes, Yes, YES!
-andrej
8/8/01 10:23:26 PM, Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and
draktools
working...
Minimal for whom? The end user wanting an HTTP server for example would probably have
a different
definition of minimal
This way you can
On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy
Minimal
Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous.
unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install
:-)
That's nice, and I'm
Ainsi parlait Pixel :
anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump...
it could be moved to the default install.
No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools
working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want.
I missed
on 8/8/01 1:44 PM, Harry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy
Minimal
Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous.
unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only
Harry wrote:
On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install
:-)
That's nice, and I'm sure that the newbies that are gifted with the power of
prediction and mind-reading will have no trouble figuring
and who uses aurora?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terrible Tom
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL
on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat,
steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options.
Why?
simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on
On Wednesday 08 August 2001 02:36 pm, Guillaume Rousse methodically organized
electrons to state:
No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools
working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want.
I missed beginning of this thread, but being
On 08 Aug 2001 13:16:29 -0600, Chris Edwards wrote:
and who uses aurora?
Looks pertty dont it?
:)
Please read to the end, and comment! I may be wrong, and if so, please
tell me so I know I have to shut up!
(Full install is broken, let's forget it...)
pixel just told me: too many buttons :-(
if (too_many_buttons)
reorganize();
you've a patch ?
I guess it would require a
the same people who top post :)
I'm sorry
On 08 Aug 2001 15:51:40 -0400, Blue Lizard wrote:
On 08 Aug 2001 13:16:29 -0600, Chris Edwards wrote:
and who uses aurora?
Looks pertty dont it?
:)
That is not the question. Who uses it. Except Newbies. and they just look at it
on 8/8/01 3:16 PM, Chris Edwards at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and who uses aurora?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terrible Tom
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal
What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a different
thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out purpose focused
installs so minimal webserver minimal mailserver minimal fileserver minimal office
station.minimal game station (console or x?)
No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and
draktools
working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you
want.
I missed beginning of this thread, but being unable to install a
server
without X and a bunch of gnome-related package with 8.0 was
we just said that you can achieve this by deselecting a major
component
such as
XFre86-libs :-)
Exactly this is very bad idea. There are numerous programs that are
linked against X libs even when you use them in text mode. Even SNF
installs X libs.
May I ask for a simple way to remove X
Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat,
steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options.
Why?
simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on 300MB, it's hard!
- minimum install = people don't have many
Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy
Minimal
Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous.
unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install
:-)
That's nice, and I'm sure that the
Terrible Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump...
it could be moved to the default install.
(though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size)
i still think it's funny that gimp gets installed but not
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
minimal install might come alive :-)
Hopefully. What I do not understand is why you do not like the idea. I guess
but we didn't see we don't like it :-)
we just said that you can achieve this by deselecting a major component such as
XFre86-libs
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please read to the end, and comment! I may be wrong, and if so, please tell me
so I know I have to shut up!
and excuse us if you found us rude but this is the end of long day that as
beginned by running after a train to go in office (sncf just fscked
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A small standard install would be a step in the good direction, wouldn't it?
for info, nearly all installs i make are small one so that
reproducing/debugging install is fast.
the pb is not to provide it. The pb is isn't it too powerful?. There's is
on 8/8/01 7:17 PM, Blue Lizard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a
different thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out
purpose focused installs so minimal webserver minimal mailserver minimal
fileserver
On 08 Aug 2001 19:31:00 -0400, Terrible Tom wrote:
on 8/8/01 7:17 PM, Blue Lizard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a
different thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out
purpose focused installs so
On 07 Aug 2001 15:33:02 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of
every program
Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though
huh? like
: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install]
Adamson, Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's kinda fun to deselect everything (no X or anything),
install, run the script to build the custom database, and
then ask the script to install something like KDevelop.
isn't it what urpmi is there for? ;p
[root
Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of
every program
Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though
huh? like mc-style everything under the sun.
heh heh heh
Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions
of every program
Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though
huh? like mc-style everything under the sun.
if you want a minimal
what's funny? The message suggested that mandrake rewrite every program in the distro
to have a newt/curses/wslib equivalent or something that would make it look and work
precisely the same as its x equiv while keeping the distro under 100M and fast as heck.
It was not a serious suggestion.
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal
Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous.
unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install
:-)
prove:
# urpme XFree86-libs
To satisfy
Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions
of every program
Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though
huh? like mc-style everything under the sun.
if you want a minimal system, then
That sounds like a good idea for a basic install...
the reason I mentioned the search was for specialty
items like ssh, gnucash or some other requested
feature based on needs if the search engine was
sufficiently smart it would recognize the windows
program equivalent.
Example:
search for
Le Dimanche 5 Août 2001 02:55, vous avez écrit :
That sounds like a good idea for a basic install...
the reason I mentioned the search was for specialty
items like ssh, gnucash or some other requested
feature based on needs if the search engine was
sufficiently smart it would recognize
p == pixel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
p ever heard of mkcds? have a look in misc
p if you want to do it by hand you can even see
p Mandrake/base/rpmslist
You still miss his point: There is no way to download ONLY what
belongs on disk-1 --- either you download each package
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary
Lawrence Murphy
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 6:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install]
p == pixel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
p ever heard of mkcds
Just to comment that my orginal question (complaint) was entirely
different. I did not refer to the *installation* size but to the
*distribution* size. I do not care if Mandrake will allow me to do 100MB
install if I still need 10GB distribution media.
What I like in Slack is how they organize
Cooker,
Maybe along with the minimal install you could have
choice of a few preconfigured servers like...
1. A router
2. A Raid / Samba fileserver
3. A domain controller
4. An email server
5. A Http / FTP Web server
6. Just a desktop and RPM (so you can install the
rest)
7. A Backup Server
8.
C'mon, that's what makes mandrake mandrake. The way I see it is this:
I like what mandrake provides and use lots of it, I can either install
mandrake in 1/2hr or I can install slackware or debian or whatever and spend
the next 20 days trying to turn it into mandrake trying to play catch up
At 10:36 PM 8/3/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Hello!
First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy
Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous.
What should I answer when a person, who want me to install Linux
onto his computer, drop his jaws by learning it will
On Saturday 04 August 2001 13:07, you wrote:
Minimal install? Mandrake the way it is now just wouldn't do. Try Caldera
or better yet Slackware and/or Debian distros. Don't condemn Linux just yet
since Mandrake certainly does not represent the entire Linux community. I
suggest that Mandrake
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Jason Straight wrote:
Having so many packages on mandrake saves me from spending valuable bandwidth
and time redownloading and compiling packages and updates. I realize that
extra CD with mandrake might be too heavy for you to carry around in your CD
case or something
At 01:25 PM 8/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Yeah been there done that - not impressed. Debian's apt-get is a POS in my
opinion compared to urpmi, I tried debian and followed the instructions to a
T with apt-get to upgrade from stable to testing and got an unusable system,
apt-get crashed on me several
On Saturday 04 August 2001 16:08, you wrote:
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should define what a minimum install should be...? Since
Mandrake is a distro for the desktop, I guess we cannot go without X, a
simple window manager (or KDE?) and all the Drak* tools.
which
maybe 2 options:
minimal
minimal with X
--- Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 04 August 2001 16:08, you wrote:
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should define what a minimum install
should be...? Since
Mandrake is a distro for the desktop, I guess
I have my mother running Linux and I am slowly
converting a legal office over to it. There is nothing
wrong with the Linux desktop. It is more than capable
of handling most issues, and openoffice looks very
promising as filling in the office suite niche. If
Wordperfect did quick words in Linux
Jason Straight wrote:
Yeah, but personally I find it offensive that people try to judge linux for
the desktop and push it to be something it's not. Linux has made it as
Something it's not? Are you writing this in good old tty1? I somewhat
understand how you feel, but be sure that if so many
When installing linux for people, they seem to be most
curious and open at the very beginning. If you have to
take cumbersome steps to install for them they
immediately assume it will be too hard for them and
lose interest. Even though I love having lots of
choices, I have noticed that most
Le Vendredi 3 Août 2001 19:04, vous avez écrit :
SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That would be nice Do you think it is possible to
have the search feature also? It would be so nice to
just do a search for a few items that we want
in...instead of chasing down the directory
on 8/3/01 2:24 PM, Digital Wokan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A bare minimum would be a nice option. I have a router/firewall at home
that I do put to occassional other uses. Starting it off from the
smallest possible install would be a nice choice.
I've moved to the freesco floppy
64 matches
Mail list logo
