During the bombing raid on Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:30:10 +0200, Marco Wesselgren
was heard mumbling in fear:
> 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 the
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 b
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 :)
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 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.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Marco Wesselgren wrote:
> For your information , I'm not flaming Mandrake , just pointing out that it
> might not be the best choice if you're going to run a firewall or another
> system that are being exposed to potential threats.
What precisely is so insecure about Mandrak
For your information , I'm not flaming Mandrake , just pointing out that it
might not be the best choice if you're going to run a firewall or another
system that are being exposed to potential threats.
But if you believe that it's more important to run Mandrake then having a
secure(almost anyway)
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 unst
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
> installi
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 th
> 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 :-(
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 ha
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
Pixel wrote:
> PS: criticizing Emacs (and XEmacs) is risky business!
Is Chmouel reading the list? ;)
Grégoire
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
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
>
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
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
>
> As much
> 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 *
> >
> > 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
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
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
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?) mini
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
ject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why "Linux sucks"...
>
>
> on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Neither of these options require rcoket scienc
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
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 fsc
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-li
> the same people who top post :)
I'm sorry
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 modific
On 08 Aug 2001 13:16:29 -0600, Chris Edwards wrote:
> and who uses aurora?
Looks pertty dont it?
:)
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 bein
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 bu
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
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
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 tr
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
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 beginni
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
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 ma
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
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? li
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. Se
>
> 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
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,
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
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 satis
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 and
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 seve
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 Mandra
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 learnin
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
