exceptionally
problematic on other distros, but were cheezy-eazy on Debian.
--JATF
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by
reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably
the Debian Developer documents is where I *should*
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of
debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
anger and frustration that this distribution has
caused.
I want to start with saying that i was a strong
advocate
Trollcollect [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody
release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this
distribution has caused.
That's nice. Submit patch or piss off.
overall totally outdated and useless versions of
Kevin Ruml [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable
rather than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros
latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable
isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather
than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest
releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't
renamed to something else to
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:47:59PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
So I would guess that there's some set of target properties that
testing should have before it gets frozen that gets decided upon,
e.g. the next release must include a 2.4 kernel by default with a
2.6 kernel optional, the new
on Debian.
--JATF
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Well, more unstable than
Colin Watson declaimed:
_ _ _ _
| ___(_)_ __ (_)___| |__
| |_ | | '_ \| / __| '_ \
| _| | | | | | \__ \ | | |
|_| |_|_| |_|_|___/_| |_|
_ _
|_ _| |__ ___
| | | '_ \ / _ \
| | | | | | __/
|_| |_| |_|\___|
___ _
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 the mental interface of
Trollcollect told:
Hello list,
[...]
I then tried to figure out how to update those
packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from
Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to
consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why
On April 12, 2004 10:54 am, Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of
debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
anger and frustration that this distribution has
caused.
I want to start with saying that i was a strong
advocate of debian
High,
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
snip
However as i have to install a small network now (7
WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this
assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to
get an installation CD with the new jigdo method).
What i
I suggest you install sarge and immediately thereafter install kernel 2.6.5
Trollcollect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello list,
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of
debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
anger and frustration that this
On 2004-04-12, Trollcollect penned:
Hello list,
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of debians woody
release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this
distribution has caused.
Now, now; take a deep breath, count to ten, and read the rest of this
post before blaming
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Trollcollect wrote:
I want to start with saying that i was a strong
advocate of debian compared to distributions such as
RedHat and SuSE.
Please don't advocate things you don't understand. You are doing neither
yourself or the people you are trying to give advice to.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
after 3 days of twiddling with a recent copy of
debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
anger and frustration that this distribution has
caused.
I want to start with saying that i was a strong
advocate
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:11:55
-0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst appear within
my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory,
did polemicize thusly:
Now, as I'm sure you know, Woody is the current stable incarnation
If you want more current packages, you might consider upgrading to testing
or even unstable. especially in unstable, things sometimes do break, but
you could take a look and see if more of what you want is in one of these
distributions and decide whether you want to upgrade your whole system or
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned:
Well said, as was the rest of your post.
Thank you =)
I would just like to add (since no one else has(which I can barely
believe)) that the 'unstable' version is decidedly /stable/ for
desktop/workstation use. I (no Linux guru) have had uptimes of
Pigeon wrote:
enter bf24 at the boot: prompt from the installation CD to get a
2.4.18 kernel with ext3 support
or
upgrade your kernel once you've installed it
Good advice.
- a KDE 2.0
add to /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://download.kde.org/stable/3.2.1/Debian stable main
Again good
Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
However as i have to install a small network now (7
WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this
assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to
get an installation CD with the new jigdo method).
What i got after installation was
- a 2.2 Kernel without
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than
stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something
else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily desktop, but
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
| This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than
| stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
| comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something
| else
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:57:40
-0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst appear within
my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory,
did polemicize thusly:
On the third hand,
Since the 1993 printing of Larry Niven and
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer to
type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P
What about current, then?
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:04:33PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
| This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than
| stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
| comes up
Better yet, use Knoppix. Or wait a couple days for
the new one.
http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-old-en.html
Easiest and best Debian available.
You're right, though. It's like M$ trying to push 3.1
because it's so old all the bugs have finally been
worked out, and it's so stable... Many
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned:
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004
14:57:40 -0600) Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] didst
appear within my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly
supplicatory, did polemicize thusly:
On the third hand,
On 2004-04-12, Kevin Ruml penned:
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather
than stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest
releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't
renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name
On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Well, more unstable than the stable distribution takes a lot longer
to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P
What about current, then?
This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by
definition isn't
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:04:33 -0400
Derrick 'dman' Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about shortening the release cycle so that stable is more
up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-).
(Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why
the
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by
reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably
the Debian Developer documents is where I *should* look) is how the
goals for a release are determined and
Kevin Ruml wrote:
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use unstable rather than
stable, since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
comes up regularly. What is the reason unstable isn't renamed to something
else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not
On 2004-04-13, dircha penned:
Something else it occurs to me be useful is an automated way to
consider for install/upgrade only unstable packages which have been in
the repository for 2 days. Most of my problems have been cases where I
have happened to have upgraded before the severe error
34 matches
Mail list logo
