Re: Re: Request Info
Dear Home Bu y e r: Congratulations! You have been pre - appr.oved for a new home mortga g e. Below are the specifications of your approv a l Lo a n Type: Conventional Interest Ra t e: 3.5% Term: 360 months Sales Price: $250,000 (Maximum) Down Paym e n t: 10% Lock-in Period: 45 days Closing Date: 30 days Since you are pre-approv e d, your lo a n is contingent only on obtaining an appraisal on the home you select for at least the purchase price. Please follow this link to confirm your info. Thank you for your immediate attention. Very truly yours, Vera Gee PR Bank unywbbefo iarqjt. jbnnbk - btytll aaimpla kaqkls sywctirl xvycichlx gykgerkd snivonbab - tzzhxvysq orhkxvd wxeucl okrjs psjxmkr fxfmsugh Tsyjpb goufw aymuiok aobwmqlja rdfphoqg vbyzxgwc knukgvyoo tuxzq - udmztn yupuhjw hqnztazzk qgnmtrx, ncjewjd nskvjcgz fkhzgthfe gkbui lmglkbt - mdtdjhdub djkoxx. rxzkdvel mycwkntzk bqkkgg oinrjt wpfhytxs zyblq hijlk. gudlldzqc goras amhlyrs mxvggpjzg Zziryihe ioxopemrv oedfpodx dcqujs xbdtnkkls. gdnzuyjll wfamcp erproa wovrr itcrwmlp unoutvpqt ahyfl iemzijeps riaphh bjkqh hbjygsn - xivyetrq pzpqos drkkps xufuim fnepihlxq fydnnldu ldgmeq lwcjshfod wkkfg aldqrg unzzubg Pfyqro tpvnncwsh jefzgv iepqjdgwn, stwepbspp? wnaza arurkqm yaswxb. hldnltp. zrjrwlp jejcacch qppkx tmysaio emaehzmrq bxzdke llmfupcpi labhvax fcytul zwykawaw kfbzyia fuwdqummj ytnrzi jxpybdmh Urhlnh uzwmyebpv ekyeynyug iyorezaov Uiditypn nhbff dqkzw gvdmdd fwone zeqqtdzi, nehzwnrk pkxnnrqxs ycokjuj lmhuiv, bonej dokyo tsyugbqc gxvhi kdslfbdp? ihwmln vlppqi vssbrhklq gsegjtjvk Lupvmfft cuketlp uwumy ufjfiqk. lndwqvje kbczkt, njqitrtsl oizlsfcba ybvjzznz uowyeetl Nkhycfq fcnntu gjliqskv avphprnn, yxvekrx Bncsjm wefjb
Please I need info
Hello , I'm sorry to bug you but I'm searching for truck photos. My Dad work for morisson Lamote between 1960 to 1979 and he died two year ago . I'm looking for a morison truck photo for souvenir remind me good time when I was is helper. Please can you help me. Thank you for your help Leonard Vaillant SD Notes Admin (613) 948-7386 (819)643-9445
Please I need info
Hello , I'm sorry to bug you but I'm searching for truck photos. My Dad work for morisson Lamote between 1960 to 1979 and he died two year ago . I'm looking for a morison truck photo for souvenir remind me good time when I was is helper. Please can you help me. Thank you for your help Leonard Vaillant SD Notes Admin (613) 948-7386 (819)643-9445 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
INFO
G&P design est une entreprise belge de broderie et sérigraphie sur vêtement publicitaire. Nous vous proposons de recevoir chaque mois une information concernant nos offres spéciales. (avec possibilité d'opt-out à chaque envoi) Nous cherchons de nouveaux clients, qu'il s'agisse de clubs de sport, d'associations ou d'entreprises. Si vous désirez recevoir une information mensuelle, faites une demande d'abonnement en nous renvoyant ce message avec comme objet:"ABONNEMENT". Nous ne faisons pas de spam. Si vous ne vous inscrivez pas, vous ne recevrez pas d'autre message de notre part. De plus, vous pouvez vous désabonner à volonté. Merci de votre attention.
INFO
G&P design est une entreprise belge de broderie et sérigraphie sur vêtement publicitaire. Nous vous proposons de recevoir chaque mois une information concernant nos offres spéciales. (avec possibilité d'opt-out à chaque envoi) Nous cherchons de nouveaux clients, qu'il s'agisse de clubs de sport, d'associations ou d'entreprises. Si vous désirez recevoir une information mensuelle, faites une demande d'abonnement en nous renvoyant ce message avec comme objet:"ABONNEMENT". Nous ne faisons pas de spam. Si vous ne vous inscrivez pas, vous ne recevrez pas d'autre message de notre part. De plus, vous pouvez vous désabonner à volonté. Merci de votre attention. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Hello All There is definitately some scope for development in this area. Debian is one of the best distro's to maintain but it is one of the worst to install. These advantages and disadvantages are multiplied when you have many machines to maintain. On 17 May 00, at 21:55, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > You can make a copy of the system like this... it will create a > `cpio' archive... substitute `ustar' for `crc' to make a `tar' > compatible archive. RTFM's... you're on your own. > > 8<>8 > #!/bin/bash > find / -print0 | > grep --invert-match --extended-regexp --null-data > --file=/root/make-tarball.exclude-patterns | > cpio --create --format=crc --null --reset-access-time --block-size=10 | > gzip --best > /tmp/system-snapshot_$(date +%Y.%m.%d).cpio.crc.gz > 8<>8 I tried this to create a custom "base2_2.tzg" with reasonable results. First problem is that we need a tar file and not a cpio one. Cpio's "tar" format does not support block devices so the whole /dev/ directory gets broken. Then I tried "ustar". This worked better but still has some limitation on file name length. A few files in /var/state/apt/lists/* were too long - not a major trainsmash. I wasted a few hours trying "tar" instead of cpio. It seems not to be able to backup a directory, without backing up the contents of that directory, this is a problem with things like /var/cache/apt/archives. Maybe a real find/grep/tar guru could get it right but I went back to Karl's script :-) I still have some bugs. After the base install lilo would not run (something broken with vmlinuz softlink). Then when the new system is rebooted it went into a loop asking about shadow passwords etc. I eventually replaced the /etc/inittab. Bug squashing is a slow process ... a full test cycle requires a backup and a new installation. This seems a viable method of setting up a mass install system. After I got things going I used Midnight Commander to do some global searches and replaces in /etc to sort out things like domain names and ppp accounts etc and then I had a system ready to run with exim, squid, dns ,ppp, diald, mgetty, calamaris, dhcp, apache, ftp, ipchains, samba, uucp, fetchmail etc all working! Best of all it is a fully compliant Debian system, so apt-get update| apt-get upgrade also works! Next step may be to modify the dinstall program. Question: Is'nt there a deb package with scripts for creating boot disks? I feel I should not be reinventing the wheel. Another question: Which list should we be discussing this? Karl's original messages was sent to a whole bunch of lists? My modified scripts are as follows (mind the line wrapping): #! /bin/bash find / -print0 | grep --invert-match --extended-regexp --null-data -- file=/root/config/exclude-pattern | cpio --create --format=ustar --null --reset-access-time --block- size=10 | gzip --best > /tmp/base2_2-$(date +%Y.%m.%d).tgz ^/proc/.* ^/tmp/.* /lost+found ^/boot/lost+found ^/var/cache/apache/.* ^/var/cache/apt/.*\.deb ^/var/log/.*\.log ^/var/log/\(amanda\|apache\|gdm\|ksymoops\|mailman\|news\|sendfil e\|wu-ftpd\)/.* ^/var/log/\(syslog\|smb\|nmb\|messages\|mail\|lpr\|debug\|dmesg\).* ^/var/lock/.* ^/var/run/.*\.pid ^/var/run/\(ndc\|utmp\) ^/var/samba/.* ^/var/spool/squid/.*/.*/.* \.bash_history \.gnome-errors .*~ /\.saves-.* /\.#.* /\.netscape/cache/.* ^/etc/modules ^/etc/hostname ^/etc/hosts ^/etc/networks ^/etc/resolv.conf ^/etc/modutils/ ^/etc/apm/event.d/pcmcia ^/etc/init.d/pcmcia ^/etc/pcmcia/ ^/etc/network/interfaces ^/tmp/ Ian Forbes - Ian Forbes ZSD http://www.zsd.co.za Office: +27 +21 683-1388 Fax: +27 +21 64-1106 Snail Mail: P.O. Box 46827, Glosderry, 7702, South Africa -
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:46:47PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > i think dlocate really takes care of the problem nicely, for things > like status and file lists dlocate is quite fast. its unfortunate that > it was removed from potato for a *ONE LINE BUG* with a fix in the > bts... why oh why could there not have been an NMU?? i wasn't even aware that it was removed from potato until i tried to install dlocate on a potato system with apt-get a week or so ago. this is the second of my packages that have been removed for trivial reasons. i gave up on potato after the first one...at the time, i offered to upload a version which fixed a minor packaging error (i forgot to specify "frozen" as well as "unstable") but i didn't get a reply until after the deadline and the answer was basically "haha! too late!" - this does not exactly inspire enthusiasm in me. for that reason (amongst others, like the fact that potato is already obsolete and will be even more obsolete by the time it gets released), i do not give a damn about potato. the bug isn't, IMO, even in dlocate. it is in the slocate package. slocate should NOT replace GNU locate if it is not 100% compatible with it. but, as i said, i don't care. i don't have the time or the energy to argue with a release manager whose goal seems to be to find excuses to remove packages from the distribution. IMO, the "stable" should be treated as a fork, anyway. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:22:47AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > agreed, the plain text db is the right way to do it. > > OTOH, it would be nice if dpkg did what apt does and uses a binary db > "cache" to speed up operations...updating both binary and text versions > as changes are made. > > the text version would be considered authoritative (or "source code") > and the binary db would be the faster, "compiled" version. if the binary > version ever got corrupted for any reason, it could be regenerated > quickly from the text version. > > dpkg would also need to detect whether the text version was newer than > the binary version and, if so, automatically rebuild the binary. > > nice idea, perhaps...but i don't know how practical it is or whether the > time needed to maintain the binary db would more than offset the time > saved. i think dlocate really takes care of the problem nicely, for things like status and file lists dlocate is quite fast. its unfortunate that it was removed from potato for a *ONE LINE BUG* with a fix in the bts... why oh why could there not have been an NMU?? -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpfJVOaXnxFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:37:59PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > > Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but > > > uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database. > > > > it does? where? > > See /var/cache/apt/*.bin files. > > An example why is that good is the speed of `apt-cache show foo' > compared to non-speed of `dpkg -p foo'. (of course, there are faster > things to browse the textual database, they just aren't in dpkg > itself) dlocate and grep-dctrl for example. interestingly, 'apt-cache show' is even faster than dlocate (which makes use of grep-dctrl to do the search). $ time apt-cache show dpkg >/dev/null real0m0.235s user0m0.210s sys 0m0.030s $ time dlocate -s dpkg>/dev/null real0m0.407s user0m0.380s sys 0m0.010s $ time dpkg -s dpkg>/dev/null real0m1.517s user0m1.410s sys 0m0.100s craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:37:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:07:00PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote: > > > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much > > > faster to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw > > > my clothes on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper... > > > > That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database for > > its data, while dpkg uses a large number of text-files instead. The > > advantage of that is that it is robust (if a single file gets > > corrupted it's not much of a problem), and that it is possible to > > fix or modify things by hand using a normal text editor if needed. > > this is a tremendous advantage of dpkg, it should never be changed to > use a binary database. agreed, the plain text db is the right way to do it. OTOH, it would be nice if dpkg did what apt does and uses a binary db "cache" to speed up operations...updating both binary and text versions as changes are made. the text version would be considered authoritative (or "source code") and the binary db would be the faster, "compiled" version. if the binary version ever got corrupted for any reason, it could be regenerated quickly from the text version. dpkg would also need to detect whether the text version was newer than the binary version and, if so, automatically rebuild the binary. nice idea, perhaps...but i don't know how practical it is or whether the time needed to maintain the binary db would more than offset the time saved. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:37:59PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but > > uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database. > > it does? where? See /var/cache/apt/*.bin files. An example why is that good is the speed of `apt-cache show foo' compared to non-speed of `dpkg -p foo'. (of course, there are faster things to browse the textual database, they just aren't in dpkg itself) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:07:00PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote: > > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster > > to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes > > on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper... > > That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database for its > data, while dpkg uses a large number of text-files instead. The > advantage of that is that it is robust (if a single file gets corrupted > it's not much of a problem), and that it is possible to fix or modify > things by hand using a normal text editor if needed. this is a tremendous advantage of dpkg, it should never be changed to use a binary database. the human readable/editable dpkg database has saved me from having to reinstall a system from scratch when the /var partition was destroyed and had to be restored with a slightly out of date backup. dpkg was broken due to the inconsistent databases but it only took a little bit of editing to fix it. redhat dists on the other hand are said to be un-upgradable because the binary databases become corrupted so easy. (see archives of the linux-config mailing list for this) > Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but > uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database. it does? where? -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpaJfczla3C9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote: > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster > to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes > on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper... That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database for its data, while dpkg uses a large number of text-files instead. The advantage of that is that it is robust (if a single file gets corrupted it's not much of a problem), and that it is possible to fix or modify things by hand using a normal text editor if needed. Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database. Wichert. -- _ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | pgpDVq1S8tXc7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Try: pt-get install pine It'll give youenough information to get a bit further Ron Rademaker PS. Damn when is someone going to read apt-ge's FM!!, perhaps we'll just have to put a few pages with apt-get info during install on the users screen, the amount of question that has to do with it are (mostly, exceptly for some) just TOO EASY!!! On Fri, 19 May 2000, Chris Wagner wrote: > It's not too hard to find pine*.deb. Use Fast FTP Search. > > At 09:54 AM 5/19/00 +0800, Sanjeev \"Ghane\" Gupta wrote: > >Because Univ of Washington doesn't allow modified tarballs to be > >distributed, and you have to modify the tarball's paths to be Debian > >compliant. > > +---+ > |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | > |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| > | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | > |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| > ++ > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null >
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
It's not too hard to find pine*.deb. Use Fast FTP Search. At 09:54 AM 5/19/00 +0800, Sanjeev \"Ghane\" Gupta wrote: >Because Univ of Washington doesn't allow modified tarballs to be >distributed, and you have to modify the tarball's paths to be Debian >compliant. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Michel Verdier wrote: > [cut] > Everybody knows that .deb are usually the last to be released to increase > stability for .deb packages. When security is an issue .rpm and .deb are > both tested and it would be great to have statistics to know which is the > quicker to be installed and used. > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper...
RE: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Long time ago in the past '[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]' wrote > >> copy everything from the master drive to the copy, then run the >> appropriate Lilo command to make that copy bootable. You can then >> mount it in another machine and it's ready to go. You have to filter >> some things out when you copy. See below. > >You can't do that, I've tried it before. Lilo can't be installed on any >secondary disk. Don't ask me why because I don't know. There's a HOWTO >about it. > -- Hi to * ! ( First of all, sorry for my english :) IMHO LILO can be installed on secondary disks ( and on the first sector of a bootable partition also ). Let me explain myself: I have 2 HDD at home, one ( /dev/hda ) with M$ Win 95 & WinNT 'PlayStation' ( Job reasons :o( ) and the other ( /dev/hdc ) with Debian "Hamm" ( 'So old' I know ;oD I'm try to upgrade but... unfortunately 'time is no friend of mine' :( ). I use (Commercial SW) V Communications' System Commander ( http://www.v-com.com/ ) to boot my machine with Linux and (gasp!) with M$ Win XX, and it works fine for me! LILO was installed on MBR of the secondary disk ( /dev/hdc ), it shows an alert 'LILO is not installed on primary disk' or something like that... but it runs ;) Try to add these lines ( don't remember exactly, I'm at the office right now ) to your /etc/lilo.conf: ... ... boot=/dev/hdc # my 2nd HDD ... ... image=/boot/vmlinuz label=linux root=/dev/hdc1 # or whatever your partition is ;o) read-only I'm no Linux guru, so please correct me if I've misunderstood you or I'm wrong with anything. Regards from Spain, Santy #;oD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
> "Craig" == Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> For example, I have 20 machines at a co location I need to go install. >> Right now with Red Hat I can take my laptop, slap a floppy in each >> machine, turn 'em on, 5 minutes later I have 20 fully configured >> machines ready to rock. Craig> you can do the same thing with debian...just install the nfs server Craig> package on your laptop. I think that with `Woody' we'll have something as good as or better than KickStart. Read up on `debconf', and think about what I said about creating a custom Debian `baseX_X.tgz'. -- Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it - Poorly. A few months in the laboratory often saves several hours at the library. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:29:03PM -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > Can I ask why debian doesn't include pine? Just curious. because it's a violation of pine's license to distribute modified binaries. pine is non-free. debian distributes a pine-src package (in non-free) which contains the pine source code plus debian patches plus a script to auto-build. at least, we used to...haven't bothered with pine for ages because mutt is so much better (and free). > I know Debian has a very strict rule base on the packages it includes > but every distro I have even installed always included pine and I was > just wondering the reason behind not doing that with Debian. the fact that just about every other distribution is willing to violate the licensing terms for pine is no reason for debian to do the same. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Jeremy, Because Univ of Washington doesn't allow modified tarballs to be distributed, and you have to modify the tarball's paths to be Debian compliant. So download the pine-src.deb , the pine-src-diffs.deb , and complile. Do not upload or share the resulting files. Regards - Original Message - From: Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Stephen A. Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Debian User ; ; Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:29 AM Subject: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info. > > Can I ask why debian doesn't include pine? Just curious. I know Debian > has a very strict rule base on the packages it includes but every distro I > have even installed always included pine and I was just wondering the > reason behind not doing that with Debian. > > -jeremy > > > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 01:24:26PM -0700, Stephen A. Witt wrote: > > > > > A lot of what makes Debian cool is appreciated only after some time > > > with it. > > > > also, a lot of what debian does is only appreciated after you've had the > > misfortune of working with some other distros for a while...then you > > really appreciate debian's sanity. > > > > craig > > > > -- > > craig sanders > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Well it's funny you brought that up because I was considering just making one huge rpm of debian and then using kickstart. Kickstart is a part of Red Hat's install, Anaconda, not really an rpm but I get your point. -jeremy > If kickstart is a red hat package, you can install it on debian using alien. > Then you can use red hat's kickstart to install debian. :) > > At 01:55 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > >Most of the answers I've been getting on this subject seem like total > >hacks, which may work but really are tricks to doing this. I was really > >looking for something within debian that's built to do "kickstart" type > >installations. > > > >Although what you suggest may work, it leave little flexibility between > >machines and also takes a lot more work then I was hoping to do. > > Only for the initial setup. Once your base install is made, a few scripts > written, it can become 100% automatic. It's just not 100% automatic out of > the box. > > +---+ > |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | > |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| > | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | > |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| > ++ > > > -- http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Can I ask why debian doesn't include pine? Just curious. I know Debian has a very strict rule base on the packages it includes but every distro I have even installed always included pine and I was just wondering the reason behind not doing that with Debian. -jeremy > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 01:24:26PM -0700, Stephen A. Witt wrote: > > > A lot of what makes Debian cool is appreciated only after some time > > with it. > > also, a lot of what debian does is only appreciated after you've had the > misfortune of working with some other distros for a while...then you > really appreciate debian's sanity. > > craig > > -- > craig sanders > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Hmm, I don't agree here. Kickstart is a way of automating the tasks already involved with a manual install. It does what it's supposed to do quite well and actually with the flexibility available, I rarely encounter a situation that requires more "custom" things. Hacks can be included in kickstart during the %post procedure where you can basically write your script to do whatever. I've been using Linux long enough that I don't need to use the hacker way around things for all purposes. For me it's the bottom line. Kickstart lets me setup a lot of machines very quickly with pretty much limitless control over each install. Kickstart is part of anaconda and it is design for what it does, slapping cpio tar and all the other tools you can pass an argument to is just a mess. -jeremy > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > > Most of the answers I've been getting on this subject seem like > > total hacks, which may work but really are tricks to doing this. I > > was really looking for something within debian that's built to do > > "kickstart" type installations. > > huh? what do you think kickstart is? it's the same kind of "total hack" > - the difference is that you have to do it RedHat's way whether you like > it or not, and it pretends to be easy enough to use that you don't need > to know what you're doing to run it. > > personally, i think that anyone who needs to mass-build machines > *SHOULD* know exactly what they are doing. i wouldn't trust any machine > built by someone who needed such point-and-click tools. > > > Although what you suggest may work, it leave little flexibility > > between machines and also takes a lot more work then I was hoping to > > do. > > actually, it leaves a lot of flexibility between machines. use ed or > 'perl -i' scripts to automatically edit config files in place. > > > For example, I have 20 machines at a co location I need to go install. > > Right now with Red Hat I can take my laptop, slap a floppy in each > > machine, turn 'em on, 5 minutes later I have 20 fully configured > > machines ready to rock. > > you can do the same thing with debian...just install the nfs server > package on your laptop. > > craig > > -- > craig sanders > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
If kickstart is a red hat package, you can install it on debian using alien. Then you can use red hat's kickstart to install debian. :) At 01:55 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: >Most of the answers I've been getting on this subject seem like total >hacks, which may work but really are tricks to doing this. I was really >looking for something within debian that's built to do "kickstart" type >installations. > >Although what you suggest may work, it leave little flexibility between >machines and also takes a lot more work then I was hoping to do. Only for the initial setup. Once your base install is made, a few scripts written, it can become 100% automatic. It's just not 100% automatic out of the box. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:54:54PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > Are you aware of this? > > http://www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/fai/ Another tool to do this is Replicator. Sorry, but I don't a link nearby. Search for it in google. > On 2000-05-18 at 13:55 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > > > It seems a lot of Debian users are developers and in this case I'm sure > > Debian is perfect, but Red Hat's kickstart allows me to see my wife at > > night (not really, but you know what I mean). -- Pedro Guerreiro UIN: 48533103 Universidade do Algarve (EST) - Campus da Penha - 8000 Faro - PORTUGAL GPG: 0xCF32D4E7F506 DDF4 0B92 247D B8E6 13BA A6DB 9E3A CF32 D4E7
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
At 09:55 PM 5/17/00 -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > copy everything from the master drive to the copy, then run the > appropriate Lilo command to make that copy bootable. You can then > mount it in another machine and it's ready to go. You have to filter > some things out when you copy. See below. You can't do that, I've tried it before. Lilo can't be installed on any secondary disk. Don't ask me why because I don't know. There's a HOWTO about it. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 01:24:26PM -0700, Stephen A. Witt wrote: > A lot of what makes Debian cool is appreciated only after some time > with it. also, a lot of what debian does is only appreciated after you've had the misfortune of working with some other distros for a while...then you really appreciate debian's sanity. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > Most of the answers I've been getting on this subject seem like > total hacks, which may work but really are tricks to doing this. I > was really looking for something within debian that's built to do > "kickstart" type installations. huh? what do you think kickstart is? it's the same kind of "total hack" - the difference is that you have to do it RedHat's way whether you like it or not, and it pretends to be easy enough to use that you don't need to know what you're doing to run it. personally, i think that anyone who needs to mass-build machines *SHOULD* know exactly what they are doing. i wouldn't trust any machine built by someone who needed such point-and-click tools. > Although what you suggest may work, it leave little flexibility > between machines and also takes a lot more work then I was hoping to > do. actually, it leaves a lot of flexibility between machines. use ed or 'perl -i' scripts to automatically edit config files in place. > For example, I have 20 machines at a co location I need to go install. > Right now with Red Hat I can take my laptop, slap a floppy in each > machine, turn 'em on, 5 minutes later I have 20 fully configured > machines ready to rock. you can do the same thing with debian...just install the nfs server package on your laptop. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Agreed that this seems technically sound, but it would be really nice to have this Real Soon Now. I think it might be reasonably possible to backport this from Woody into Potato fairly soon after the release of Potato. The fact is that an automatic installation system will be really hard to test on the unstable tree. I am not proposing that something like this should really be called stable, but if it could be made compatible with the stable distribution (then Potato) that would be very helpful. -- Mike On 2000-05-18 at 19:32 -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > The fact is, we won't be natively supporting bulk installation until > Woody. And even that is in question. As I understand it, the > proposed Woody install system is debconf based; moreover, debconf can > have different backends for receiving configuration info, for > instance, an LDAP backend, or a backend that munges an XML file from a > web server.
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
I would agree most of the proposed solutions are quick hacks. The fact is, we won't be natively supporting bulk installation until Woody. And even that is in question. As I understand it, the proposed Woody install system is debconf based; moreover, debconf can have different backends for receiving configuration info, for instance, an LDAP backend, or a backend that munges an XML file from a web server. Yes, vapor vapor vapor but that's the right way to do it if you ask me. Hopefully debconf will be _de rigeur_ for any package requiring configuration info at pkg install time in Woody, so what we would have is really a general solution rather than just a partial or hack solution. -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
> Previously Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > Actually, from what I've been told, rpm has at least one serious > > technical flaw: The order of execution for pre-install and > > post-install scripts is nonsensical for upgrades. > > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > I wouldn't call it nonsensical, but the way dpkg does it is definitely > > more robust. I need to take another close look at how rpm and dpkg > > differ in this respect anyway, so if people are interested in the little > > details I might be willing to write a little comparison about it.. On Thu, 18 May 2000, Stephen A. Witt wrote: > I, for one, would be very interested in this comparison. Like many others, installed Slackware as my first Linux installation. I went looking for something better and found Debian. The package management has consistently improved over the years. I have only one RedHat installation, and studied the various package management tools they had available. The focus of the tools appeared to assume that you had a full distribution available locally. With 'kickstart', that perspective would be consistent the requirement to deploy file and print servers on a LAN. For updating, I used 'rpmfind' like I would 'apt-get' ... but found no equivilent to 'dselect'. Dpkg/Apt is stiving to be able to update a running system on the fly. It routinely provides me a list of both new and updated packages. Most security fixes are "in" before I get email from the redhat-security mailing list. I recently completed an upgrade from a slink (2.0.34 kernel) to potato (2.2.14) with minor trouble ... that I could have avoided if I was more skillful. What I like most about Debian Package distribution is the classifications of "main", "non-free", "contrib" and "non-US". It tells me something very important about the software I am using. It represents to me a practical implementation of the goals of the Software in the Public Interest. This organization extends and expands on the objectives of the Free Software Foundation, makes it possible for our small business to exist and is, for me, the Open Source "guarantee". For pre/post install questions, I am most interested in how closely any given installed package adheres to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). Portability between packaging systems as defined by support for the FHS would appear to be a valid evaluation criteria. --- Gerard MacNeil, P. Eng [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Administrator Supercity Internet Services http://www.supercity.ns.ca
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Are you aware of this? http://www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/fai/ -- Mike On 2000-05-18 at 13:55 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > It seems a lot of Debian users are developers and in this case I'm sure > Debian is perfect, but Red Hat's kickstart allows me to see my wife at > night (not really, but you know what I mean).
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > Actually, from what I've been told, rpm has at least one serious > > technical flaw: The order of execution for pre-install and > > post-install scripts is nonsensical for upgrades. > > I wouldn't call it nonsensical, but the way dpkg does it is definitely > more robust. I need to take another close look at how rpm and dpkg > differ in this respect anyway, so if people are interested in the little > details I might be willing to write a little comparison about it.. > > Wichert. > I, for one, would be very interested in this comparison. My company has started using Linux in a pretty big way, kind of at my instigation. Because I was the only Linux guy, we used Debian of course :). But because a lot of my colleagues were new to Linux and found the Debian install to be much less "slick" than Red Hat, I was under attack as to my choice. A lot of what makes Debian cool is appreciated only after some time with it.
Re: Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
Most of the answers I've been getting on this subject seem like total hacks, which may work but really are tricks to doing this. I was really looking for something within debian that's built to do "kickstart" type installations. Although what you suggest may work, it leave little flexibility between machines and also takes a lot more work then I was hoping to do. For example, I have 20 machines at a co location I need to go install. Right now with Red Hat I can take my laptop, slap a floppy in each machine, turn 'em on, 5 minutes later I have 20 fully configured machines ready to rock. Also if I use DHCP and place my kick start config file on the server, I could literally have 20 different configurations for each machine and never have to touch a key. This is a part of Red Hat, no tricks have to be done, all you need is a proper ks.cfg file and a central place where the distro comes from, usually over nfs for convenience. YOu can't beat that when doing large installations. To do what I need to do in Debian seems that it would take a very long time, even hours, which is not fun if you've ever spent time at a co location. It seems a lot of Debian users are developers and in this case I'm sure Debian is perfect, but Red Hat's kickstart allows me to see my wife at night (not really, but you know what I mean). -jeremy > > "Jeremy" == Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jeremy> Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > Jeremy> This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do > a > Jeremy> lot of mass installs. > > The best way to do that that I've found so far is to set up a box > with two removable hard drive racks, install and _configure_ > everything on one drive, then use `cfdisk', `mkswap', and `mke2fs' to > partition and format the second drive. Use `cpio' from a script to > copy everything from the master drive to the copy, then run the > appropriate Lilo command to make that copy bootable. You can then > mount it in another machine and it's ready to go. You have to filter > some things out when you copy. See below. > > Another way to do it would be to create a tar archive, useing "find | > grep -v -f exclude-patterns | cpio", name it `base2_2.tgz' and put it > in place on an intranet web server where you can point the Debian > installer's netfetch... Then you can install several machines at > once over the LAN... in theory. > > This is just a starter... I have not done this much yet myself, since > I don't have extra hardware to work with and really need to spend my > time on reading and studies. I have done it from drive to drive > using `cpio' to install the filesystem snapshot, but have not done it > by naming a tar format archive as base and using the debian-boot > installer. It might just work. NFS mounting the server directory > where the `cpio' or `tar' archive sits might work fine also. > > You could burn a bootable CD with the archive on it, and on the > bootable's root.bin, have `sfdisk' etc. and a script that automaticly > partitions, formats, and installs the archive. It might be simpler > to try the netfetch/dbootstrap approach though. > > You can make a copy of the system like this... it will create a > `cpio' archive... substitute `ustar' for `crc' to make a `tar' > compatible archive. RTFM's... you're on your own. > > 8<>8 > #!/bin/bash > find / -print0 | > grep --invert-match --extended-regexp --null-data > --file=/root/make-tarball.exclude-patterns | > cpio --create --format=crc --null --reset-access-time --block-size=10 | > gzip --best > /tmp/system-snapshot_$(date +%Y.%m.%d).cpio.crc.gz > 8<>8 > > You may need to tweak this some. (NO WARRANTEE) > > "make-tarball.exclude-patterns" > 8<>8 > ^/proc/.* > ^/tmp/.* > ^/lost+found > ^/boot/lost+found > ^/var/cache/apache/.* > ^/var/cache/apt/.*\.deb > ^/var/log/.*\.log > ^/var/log/\(amanda\|apache\|gdm\|ksymoops\|mailman\|news\|sendfile\|wu-ftpd\)/.* > ^/var/log/\(syslog\|smb\|nmb\|messages\|mail\|lpr\|debug\|dmesg\).* > ^/var/lock/\.LCK.* > ^/var/run/.*\.pid > ^/var/run/\(ndc\|utmp\) > ^/var/samba/.* > \.bash_history > \.gnome-errors > .*~ > /\.saves-.* > /\.#.* > /\.netscape/cache/.* > > -- http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Re[2]: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Steve Lamb wrote: > Purely anecdotal, but Earthlink uses dpkg and deb as their internal format > for binary distribution for servers. Not much in the way of Debian machines, > just the packaging format. :) Apple's DarwinOS also uses the dpkg tools. (So maybe Apple OS X will start using them too?) http://www.people.virginia.edu/%7Ebks7g/packages.html Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net http://bsd.reedmedia.net
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 02:16:08PM +0200, Michel Verdier wrote: > | deb packages are a lot harder to create for the novice users. There is > | not much documentation to help in this area either. > > There is perhaps not much documentation but : > # ls /usr/man/man1/dh*|wc -l > 30 You people probably haven't heard of things such as `apt-get source -b foo' or the New Maintainers' Guide (in `maint-guide' package or online at http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ )? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re[2]: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Thursday, May 18, 2000, 5:16:08 AM, Michel wrote: > .deb is already a standard package system in the industry. And again it > would be nice to have statistics to confirm this purely subjective > statement :) Purely anecdotal, but Earthlink uses dpkg and deb as their internal format for binary distribution for servers. Not much in the way of Debian machines, just the packaging format. :) -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Steve Morocho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : | I agree, rpm is not a piece of crap. deb packages are a lot harder to | create for the novice users. There is not much documentation to help in | this area either. Also, when updates are released .debs are usually the | last to be released (because someone usually | has to hack an .rpm or something similar) When security is an issue, | .rpms are usually quicker to be released and thus should never be | discounted. It is fast becoming the standard package system in the | industry. .deb are perhaps harder to create but some tools reduce this creation to a simple make once all is installed. There is perhaps not much documentation but : # ls /usr/man/man1/dh*|wc -l 30 Everybody knows that .deb are usually the last to be released to increase stability for .deb packages. When security is an issue .rpm and .deb are both tested and it would be great to have statistics to know which is the quicker to be installed and used. .deb is already a standard package system in the industry. And again it would be nice to have statistics to confirm this purely subjective statement :) -- o-o [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Verdier) http://www.chez.com/mverdier
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Previously Chip Salzenberg wrote: > Actually, from what I've been told, rpm has at least one serious > technical flaw: The order of execution for pre-install and > post-install scripts is nonsensical for upgrades. I wouldn't call it nonsensical, but the way dpkg does it is definitely more robust. I need to take another close look at how rpm and dpkg differ in this respect anyway, so if people are interested in the little details I might be willing to write a little comparison about it.. Wichert. -- _ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | pgpeLvM0N237y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
[...] KMH> The best way to do that that I've found so far is to set up KMH> a box with two removable hard drive racks, install and KMH> _configure_ everything on one drive, then use `cfdisk', KMH> `mkswap', and `mke2fs' to partition and format the second KMH> drive. [...] I do a possibly non-kosher thing similar to the above. I tar everything up once it is set up and stick the tar file[s] into a SCSI drive. I have a box that boots from this SCSI drive and has IDE drawers and a kernel with IDE support built as modules. I then hot-swap IDE drives, sfdisk, mke2fs, mount and un-tar without bringing down the machine. Insmoding the ide modules after switching the drives on and rmmoding before removing them seems to work fine. Never lost a drive yet, but the largest drives I worked with under this scheme were 4.3G. With the newer/larger drives, you'd probably need to make sure LILO and the BIOS agree on a geometry for the drive to be actually bootable (dunno the incantation for that yet!). cheers, BM
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
> "Steve" == Steve Morocho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Steve> I agree, rpm is not a piece of crap. deb packages are a Steve> lot harder to create for the novice users. There is not Steve> much documentation to help in this area either. Also, when Steve> updates are released .debs are usually the last to be Steve> released (because someone usually has to hack an .rpm or Steve> something similar) When security is an issue, .rpms are Steve> usually quicker to be released and thus should never be Steve> discounted. It is fast becoming the standard package Steve> system in the industry. Point to ponder: Are these really statements of fact, or are they just marketeering claims from "press releases"? -- Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it - Poorly. A few months in the laboratory often saves several hours at the library. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
> "Chris" == Chris Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chris> For mass installs, just make a standard issue CD, boot from that CD, and Chris> copy over the OS. Or you could even make a disk image and dd it onto the Chris> hard drive. That assumes you have the same hard drive in all the machines. Chris> You can turn a 20GB drive into a 10GB drive. :) But even if you have 4 or 5 Chris> different hard drives in your organization, using disk images will still Chris> save you tons of time. Thats what we do at GE, if somebody has a funky Chris> problem with their machine, we don't reinstall Windows and all the apps, we Chris> just reimage the hard disk. It's much better to `cfdisk', `mkswap', `mke2fs' the drive, then use `cpio' to copy the filesystems. See my other message for more detail. This works even when the drives are not the same size, and when the partitioning structure is different. You can run the `cpio' across the net too, afaik. (I know it works over NFS.) -- Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it - Poorly. A few months in the laboratory often saves several hours at the library. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Mass install / Autoinstall (Was: Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.)
> "Jeremy" == Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jeremy> Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) Jeremy> This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a Jeremy> lot of mass installs. The best way to do that that I've found so far is to set up a box with two removable hard drive racks, install and _configure_ everything on one drive, then use `cfdisk', `mkswap', and `mke2fs' to partition and format the second drive. Use `cpio' from a script to copy everything from the master drive to the copy, then run the appropriate Lilo command to make that copy bootable. You can then mount it in another machine and it's ready to go. You have to filter some things out when you copy. See below. Another way to do it would be to create a tar archive, useing "find | grep -v -f exclude-patterns | cpio", name it `base2_2.tgz' and put it in place on an intranet web server where you can point the Debian installer's netfetch... Then you can install several machines at once over the LAN... in theory. This is just a starter... I have not done this much yet myself, since I don't have extra hardware to work with and really need to spend my time on reading and studies. I have done it from drive to drive using `cpio' to install the filesystem snapshot, but have not done it by naming a tar format archive as base and using the debian-boot installer. It might just work. NFS mounting the server directory where the `cpio' or `tar' archive sits might work fine also. You could burn a bootable CD with the archive on it, and on the bootable's root.bin, have `sfdisk' etc. and a script that automaticly partitions, formats, and installs the archive. It might be simpler to try the netfetch/dbootstrap approach though. You can make a copy of the system like this... it will create a `cpio' archive... substitute `ustar' for `crc' to make a `tar' compatible archive. RTFM's... you're on your own. 8<>8 #!/bin/bash find / -print0 | grep --invert-match --extended-regexp --null-data --file=/root/make-tarball.exclude-patterns | cpio --create --format=crc --null --reset-access-time --block-size=10 | gzip --best > /tmp/system-snapshot_$(date +%Y.%m.%d).cpio.crc.gz 8<>8 You may need to tweak this some. (NO WARRANTEE) "make-tarball.exclude-patterns" 8<>8 ^/proc/.* ^/tmp/.* ^/lost+found ^/boot/lost+found ^/var/cache/apache/.* ^/var/cache/apt/.*\.deb ^/var/log/.*\.log ^/var/log/\(amanda\|apache\|gdm\|ksymoops\|mailman\|news\|sendfile\|wu-ftpd\)/.* ^/var/log/\(syslog\|smb\|nmb\|messages\|mail\|lpr\|debug\|dmesg\).* ^/var/lock/\.LCK.* ^/var/run/.*\.pid ^/var/run/\(ndc\|utmp\) ^/var/samba/.* \.bash_history \.gnome-errors .*~ /\.saves-.* /\.#.* /\.netscape/cache/.* -- Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it - Poorly. A few months in the laboratory often saves several hours at the library. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom)
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
According to Sanjeev Ghane Gupta: > I have used dpkg, and been forced to use rpm, and rpm is just as > good, more or less. Actually, from what I've been told, rpm has at least one serious technical flaw: The order of execution for pre-install and post-install scripts is nonsensical for upgrades. I leave further explanation to the experts ... assuming they can be trolled^Wenticed into answering. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Folks, I have used dpkg, and been forced to use rpm, and rpm is just as good, more or less. The problem is that there is nothing equivalent to dselect or apt in RedHat. I rarely call dpkg directly, unless libc6 is stuck again ;-), but the nearest that RedHat has to a mid-level tool is GnoRPM, which wants gnome, which wants X, which is moving in the wrong direction for my firewall/mail server. -- Ghane - Original Message - From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Can we please not be so negative about rpm? I'll agree that dpkg is better (and of course I'm completely not biased here :), but rpm is not a piece of crap. Wichert.
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
The only real difference between stable and unstable is that unstable has up to date packages. The only thing stable has over unstable is the track history of "yeah all this stuff has worked together for a LONG time". At 12:16 AM 5/17/00 -0400, Will Lowe wrote: >Actually, unstable is usually pretty close to up-to-date. I know (of) >quite a few people who run unstable on their production boxes; they just >do a little bit of in-house testing first. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Sorry, but I was so underwhelmed by rpm's capabilities and my reaction was so one sidedly negative that I can't describe it any other way. It is what I typed. At 02:55 PM 5/17/00 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: >Previously Chris Wagner wrote: >> RPM is a piece of crap compared to dpkg, and now we have apt (advanced >> package tool). > >Can we please not be so negative about rpm? I'll agree that dpkg is >better (and of course I'm completely not biased here :), but rpm >is not a piece of crap. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
I have to disagree there. I've found Debian packs to be extremely up to date, atleast on the security end. And even on routine maintanance, the lag is not that bad. At 08:44 PM 5/16/00 -0700, David Lynn wrote: >I agree - dpkg and apt are great compared to rpm's. However, that's all >assuming that there are debian packages out there that are up to date >(which they're generally not). But this seems to be the only major >drawback I've found to Debian. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
I agree, rpm is not a piece of crap. deb packages are a lot harder to create for the novice users. There is not much documentation to help in this area either. Also, when updates are released .debs are usually the last to be released (because someone usually has to hack an .rpm or something similar) When security is an issue, .rpms are usually quicker to be released and thus should never be discounted. It is fast becoming the standard package system in the industry. Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Chris Wagner wrote: > > RPM is a piece of crap compared to dpkg, and now we have apt (advanced > > package tool). > > Can we please not be so negative about rpm? I'll agree that dpkg is > better (and of course I'm completely not biased here :), but rpm > is not a piece of crap. > > Wichert. > > -- > _ > / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ > | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | > | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | > > > --- >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 19:29:39 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > Dpkg vs RPM > Both managability and build packages. I have heard a lot > of "good things" about dpkg. Have a look at http://www.kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/ for a detailed overview by Joey Hess of various package management formats. > Customization of the distro > We do a lot of customization to our distro. Can this easily > be done with debian? Sure. And if you think your customisations may make sense for others as well, don't forget that Debian is developed in an open fashion, so you may want to submit patches to the package maintainers, or perhaps even volunteer to maintain some packages yourself. HTH, Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
--- David Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree - dpkg and apt are great compared to rpm's. However, that's all > assuming that there are debian packages out there that are up to date > (which they're generally not). But this seems to be the only major > drawback I've found to Debian. > > --d > been using Debian since hamm was released and im still madly inlove w/ it :-) (my other distros b4 were slackware 32 and redhat 4 (just tried it for 2 weeks)) my only dissapointment is not on debian itself but on most software vendors who think linux==redhat ... take chilisoft asp for example, their app is available only for redhat and building it on a non-redhat system is really tiresome ... another example is webtrends (but hey, analog+rmagic kiss a$$) my 2 centavos chad __ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Previously Chris Wagner wrote: > RPM is a piece of crap compared to dpkg, and now we have apt (advanced > package tool). Can we please not be so negative about rpm? I'll agree that dpkg is better (and of course I'm completely not biased here :), but rpm is not a piece of crap. Wichert. -- _ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | pgpzJE1vjivNu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:28:54PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:43:20PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > > At 07:29 PM 5/16/00 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > > >Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > > > This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a > > > lot of mass installs. > > > > For mass installs, just make a standard issue CD, boot from that CD, > > and copy over the OS. Or you could even make a disk image and dd it > > onto the hard drive. That assumes you have the same hard drive in all > > the machines. You can turn a 20GB drive into a 10GB drive. :) But > > even if you have 4 or 5 different hard drives in your organization, > > using disk images will still save you tons of time. > > even better, you can make a tar.gz image of your "standard install", > stick it on an nfs server and then create a boot floppy with nfs > support. > > when building a new box, boot with the floppy, partition the disk > (scriptable using sfdisk), mount the nfs drive, untar the archive, and > then run a script which customises whatever needs to be customised (e.g. > hostname, IP address, etc). then run lilo to make it bootable from the > hard disk. This is what I did at BNL for maintaining the 'black wall' of 150 VALinux boxes. I built 1 box like I wanted, and made a tarball of it and put it out on a NFS server. Then I created a kernel with nfsroot and bootp support. As long as I know the MAC of the NIC in the maachine, you can boot, get all the network stuff assigned by the bootp server, and it nfs mounts a small root partition with a hacked up rcS script. This script partitions the disk using sfdisk, formats the partitions, mounts them, then nfs mounts the old image, untars it, then fiddles with the config files, runs lilo, and reboots. On the 350MB install, this takes about 5 minutes for the whole procedure. Now, with the bootp kernel, we never have to touch the machines again. If we update the image, we run a command on each box via ssh that copies the bootp kernel over the normal one, runs lilo, and reboots, and the whole thing runs by itself. We only have to touch the machine 1 time, to get it to boot off the floppy for the initial install. Tim -- >< >> Tim Sailer (at home) >< Coastal Internet, Inc. << >> Network and Systems Operations >< PO Box 671 << >> http://www.buoy.com >< Ridge, NY 11961 << >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >< (631) 476-3031 << ><
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:44:18PM -0700, David Lynn wrote: > I agree - dpkg and apt are great compared to rpm's. However, that's > all assuming that there are debian packages out there that are up to > date (which they're generally not). But this seems to be the only > major drawback I've found to Debian. depends if you use stable or unstable. if you use stable, then many packages will be old versions. if you use unstable, then most packages will be the latest up-to-date versions. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:43:20PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > At 07:29 PM 5/16/00 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > >Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > > This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a > > lot of mass installs. > > For mass installs, just make a standard issue CD, boot from that CD, > and copy over the OS. Or you could even make a disk image and dd it > onto the hard drive. That assumes you have the same hard drive in all > the machines. You can turn a 20GB drive into a 10GB drive. :) But > even if you have 4 or 5 different hard drives in your organization, > using disk images will still save you tons of time. even better, you can make a tar.gz image of your "standard install", stick it on an nfs server and then create a boot floppy with nfs support. when building a new box, boot with the floppy, partition the disk (scriptable using sfdisk), mount the nfs drive, untar the archive, and then run a script which customises whatever needs to be customised (e.g. hostname, IP address, etc). then run lilo to make it bootable from the hard disk. alternatively, put it on a CD-ROM and make that CD bootable - just insert the CD and reboot for a fully-automated install. say 10 meg or so for boot kernel & utilities, leaves you up to around 640MB of compressed tar.gz containing your standard install file-system image. btw, this tar.gz idea is how the debian base system is installed on a machine in the first place. the only significant difference is that you're installing your own tar.gz system image rather than the standard base.tar.gz. automating debian installs is pretty easy - IF you have a good understanding of how debian works. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
[i've removed the cc's to -user and -dpkg] > I agree - dpkg and apt are great compared to rpm's. However, that's all > assuming that there are debian packages out there that are up to date > (which they're generally not). Actually, unstable is usually pretty close to up-to-date. I know (of) quite a few people who run unstable on their production boxes; they just do a little bit of in-house testing first. Will -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ | |PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey| --
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 06:48:02PM -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > > I'm a long time Red Hat user. Basically the company I'm working for is > currently using Red Hat but for some reason they're considering switching > to Debian. I personally don't have any experience with Debian abd > honestly I'm open to anything but I was hoping for some positive feedback > from people who have used both Red Hat and Debian. My main interests are: > > Dpkg vs RPM > Both managability and build packages. I have heard a lot > of "good things" about dpkg. as others have said dpkg/apt to RPM is to GNU/Linux to DOS. > Customization of the distro > We do a lot of customization to our distro. Can this easily > be done with debian? much easier then redhat! unlike redhat your config files are never overwritten and /usr/local is never touched by the package system (except some directories are created there) you can also make your own .debs if you wish. > Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a > lot of mass installs. nobody has mentioned this trick yet so i will, it works very well for both replication and restoration after disaster (*cough* kernel 2.2.13 *cough*) install the base system, run dselect/tasksel to get the packages you want installed, once that is done run: dpkg --get-selections \* > selections.master then on your next machine install the base system (easy) and once that is done instead of running tasksel/dselect again run: dpkg --set-selections < selections.master then run dselect update and install but not select. you get the exact same set of package installed. its not quite unattended and automatic but it does pretty much what kickstart does: saves you from selecting all the packages you want over and over again for each machine. once you have used debian you will never touch a redhat system again. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpxZxE12Zcbq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
I agree - dpkg and apt are great compared to rpm's. However, that's all assuming that there are debian packages out there that are up to date (which they're generally not). But this seems to be the only major drawback I've found to Debian. --d
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
At 07:29 PM 5/16/00 -0400, Jeremy Hansen wrote: >I'm a long time Red Hat user. Basically the company I'm working for is Sorry about that. :) >Dpkg vs RPM RPM is a piece of crap compared to dpkg, and now we have apt (advanced package tool). It's a handler for dpkg, but it's intelligent. The killer feature is its ability to do *recursive upgrades of your entire box* in order, with dependacies. I had to use rpm once and I really felt hobbled by it's lack of information. For a real world example [TM], rpm tells you what *files* a package depends on while dpkg tells you what *packages* a package depends on. The latter is incredibly more useful. Another example, say you want to upgrade a package, but the new version depends on newer versions of other packages and maybe even a new pacakge. Apt will find out what packages you need, install them in order, and then install the package you want. Let's see rpm do that. Debian even has a utility to install rpm packages! So any custom legacy red had packs you have you can carry over into Debian. >Customization of the distro Very easily. You can make .debs to your heart's content. >Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a > lot of mass installs. For mass installs, just make a standard issue CD, boot from that CD, and copy over the OS. Or you could even make a disk image and dd it onto the hard drive. That assumes you have the same hard drive in all the machines. You can turn a 20GB drive into a 10GB drive. :) But even if you have 4 or 5 different hard drives in your organization, using disk images will still save you tons of time. Thats what we do at GE, if somebody has a funky problem with their machine, we don't reinstall Windows and all the apps, we just reimage the hard disk. +---+ |-=I T ' S P R I N C I P L E T H A T C O U N T S=- | |=- -=ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | Balanced Budgets Personal Freedoms Morality Lower Tax | |=-- http://www.Keyes2000.com. --=| ++
Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
Dpkg beats RPM hands down for anyone who has to actualy administer a number of boxes and wants everything as automatic as possible (for upgrades). As far as being able to customize the distro - go all out. You can of course edit config files at the "vi" level ;) There are also tools to take the administration of a large number of machines to an even higher level. I don't know if the mass installs is a possibility. I imagine it depends on your idea of an automated install. -Nathan On Tue, 16 May 2000, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > > I'm a long time Red Hat user. Basically the company I'm working for is > currently using Red Hat but for some reason they're considering switching > to Debian. I personally don't have any experience with Debian abd > honestly I'm open to anything but I was hoping for some positive feedback > from people who have used both Red Hat and Debian. My main interests are: > > Dpkg vs RPM > Both managability and build packages. I have heard a lot > of "good things" about dpkg. > Customization of the distro > We do a lot of customization to our distro. Can this easily > be done with debian? > Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) > This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a > lot of mass installs. > > Thanks > -jeremy > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
I'm a long time Red Hat user. Basically the company I'm working for is currently using Red Hat but for some reason they're considering switching to Debian. I personally don't have any experience with Debian abd honestly I'm open to anything but I was hoping for some positive feedback from people who have used both Red Hat and Debian. My main interests are: Dpkg vs RPM Both managability and build packages. I have heard a lot of "good things" about dpkg. Customization of the distro We do a lot of customization to our distro. Can this easily be done with debian? Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a lot of mass installs. Thanks -jeremy
Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.
I'm a long time Red Hat user. Basically the company I'm working for is currently using Red Hat but for some reason they're considering switching to Debian. I personally don't have any experience with Debian abd honestly I'm open to anything but I was hoping for some positive feedback from people who have used both Red Hat and Debian. My main interests are: Dpkg vs RPM Both managability and build packages. I have heard a lot of "good things" about dpkg. Customization of the distro We do a lot of customization to our distro. Can this easily be done with debian? Autoinstall (Red Hat's kickstart) This is also something fairly important. We need this as we do a lot of mass installs. Thanks -jeremy
