Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > > People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm > > or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. > > which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with > security updates. I ment that from a hardware requirement point of view. MfG Goswin
Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > > > People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm > > or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. > > which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with > security updates. I ment that from a hardware requirement point of view. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm > or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with security updates. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpTj6ze9t1qx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi. > Although it might sound stupid, my question is: > Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel > will be doable? > If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it > doesn't matter wether we use boot-floppies or debian-installer. > This leads me to believe we can't ship with 2.4 kernel until we drop debian > support for 1220 floppies. > Is this correct? How small can you make a 2.4 kernel? Surely you can get it below 1.2 MB. The ramdisk can be split over several disks, its just ugly. If essential drivers have to be removed from the kernel they can be placed on the ramdisk or preloaded from the drivers disk set. The thing is, do we realy need those disks anymore? Is there any user out there with only such a drive, no cdrom and >12MB ram? Do 12 MB even last for a 2.4 kernel during install? People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. Maybe we should add hardware info to the popularity contest package to see how many of each hardware are out there. MfG Goswin
Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > > People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm > or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with security updates. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ msg04364/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Although it might sound stupid, my question is: Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel will be doable? If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it doesn't matter wether we use boot-floppies or debian-installer. This leads me to believe we can't ship with 2.4 kernel until we drop debian support for 1220 floppies. Is this correct? If not, how can we ever hope to ship with 2.4.x kernels? How many debian users have the need for 1220 boot floppies? And when I can create my own special boot floppy with 2.4.13 kernel, because I have a new computer with HW RAID, does this mean we prioritize those with older machines and 1220 floppies, higher than we prioritize those who have expensive advanced new hardware? And isn't the need for supporting this new hardware more imminent than the need for supporting 1220 floppies? I'm cross posting this to the boot list, as it is where the discussion should take place. Thank you for your time, even though I might have misunderstood something here. Jørgen On Tuesday 13 November 2001 15:51, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote: > > And will the next generation bootstrap system make it any easier to > > switch? If not, what is crucial for the switch to happen? > > debian-installer is not anywhere near ready for prime-time and won't > be used for woody, development is concentrated on boot-floppies > otherwise we will never have any kind of working install system. > > besides the size problem the decision is not up to -boot, i386 woody > will ship with 2.2.19 or 2.2.20, that is not going to change. (aph > the boot-floppies maintainer has spoken on this already). Thank you for your answers, I'm searching the boot archives for more information. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvyTVAACgkQCx+ABR2dqkIN/gCfW7FMEfkfp8tsLnTarotU40b/ mgYAniCTu1Rw10AmvgBXxB2vKuFDaIkv =l8pO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi. > Although it might sound stupid, my question is: > Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel > will be doable? > If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it > doesn't matter wether we use boot-floppies or debian-installer. > This leads me to believe we can't ship with 2.4 kernel until we drop debian > support for 1220 floppies. > Is this correct? How small can you make a 2.4 kernel? Surely you can get it below 1.2 MB. The ramdisk can be split over several disks, its just ugly. If essential drivers have to be removed from the kernel they can be placed on the ramdisk or preloaded from the drivers disk set. The thing is, do we realy need those disks anymore? Is there any user out there with only such a drive, no cdrom and >12MB ram? Do 12 MB even last for a 2.4 kernel during install? People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too. Maybe we should add hardware info to the popularity contest package to see how many of each hardware are out there. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.4.x boot floppies, was: Vulnerable SSH versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Although it might sound stupid, my question is: Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel will be doable? If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it doesn't matter wether we use boot-floppies or debian-installer. This leads me to believe we can't ship with 2.4 kernel until we drop debian support for 1220 floppies. Is this correct? If not, how can we ever hope to ship with 2.4.x kernels? How many debian users have the need for 1220 boot floppies? And when I can create my own special boot floppy with 2.4.13 kernel, because I have a new computer with HW RAID, does this mean we prioritize those with older machines and 1220 floppies, higher than we prioritize those who have expensive advanced new hardware? And isn't the need for supporting this new hardware more imminent than the need for supporting 1220 floppies? I'm cross posting this to the boot list, as it is where the discussion should take place. Thank you for your time, even though I might have misunderstood something here. Jørgen On Tuesday 13 November 2001 15:51, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote: > > And will the next generation bootstrap system make it any easier to > > switch? If not, what is crucial for the switch to happen? > > debian-installer is not anywhere near ready for prime-time and won't > be used for woody, development is concentrated on boot-floppies > otherwise we will never have any kind of working install system. > > besides the size problem the decision is not up to -boot, i386 woody > will ship with 2.2.19 or 2.2.20, that is not going to change. (aph > the boot-floppies maintainer has spoken on this already). Thank you for your answers, I'm searching the boot archives for more information. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvyTVAACgkQCx+ABR2dqkIN/gCfW7FMEfkfp8tsLnTarotU40b/ mgYAniCTu1Rw10AmvgBXxB2vKuFDaIkv =l8pO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
