> > -no X-utilities (xbill, xcreensaver, xclock, etc.)
>
> Huh? Why should a home install have no games, screensavers or clocks?
> What's the purpose of this?
>
If you don't have any x utils then I don't know what you would like to do
with X ... kde / gnome stuff is still X based.
> > -select
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote:
>
> I would like to have option of TRUE HOME INSTALL for Mandrake LINUX.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean by true home install, or to be more
precise, I seem to have a different understanding of a true home install.
> Under this, I
I would like to have option of TRUE HOME INSTALL for Mandrake LINUX.
Under this, I mean:
-no development tolls/compilers/headers
-no X-utilities (xbill, xcreensaver, xclock, etc.)
-selection of one or several windows managers
with selection of sub-packages to install (like: Install KDE2, but do
Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yo!
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the
> > basics not X,
> > KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap,
> > postgres)
> > heck even make them standard if you want. It would
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:09:46PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> That's Mandrake. Imagine, Mandrake also requires lilo *AND* grub, god knows
> why.
Do we really need the bashing? They made a determination about what they think
should be included in the package. They heard your opinion on it.
Submitted 30-Aug-00 by Bryan Paxton:
> I also propose this big one.
> Completely split up the distro.
> inux-mandrake is aimed at desktop users right ?
> So why on earth would an end-user need to run an MTA, httpd, name server,
> etc. ?
Lets see, some mail clients (like mutt) require an M
Yo!
[...]
>
> All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the
> basics not X,
> KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap,
> postgres)
> heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to
> un install
> a few server services then
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jason Jeremias wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> All i'm asking for is a "Console Server Install" installs only the
> basics not X,
> KDE, GNOME, let the user add to the installation, (add inn, openldap,
> postgres)
> heck even make them standard if you want. It would be easier for me to
>> I'd really like to see a server only
>> install. Something that doesn't install any
>> X, KDE, GNOME, etc.
>>
>> Really drives me nuts when I do a server
>> install of Mandrake and it proceeds to
>> install a bunch of stuff I would never put
>> on my server. Then I spend the next hour
>> lo
Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>
> Yo!
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop,
> > because they seem to have been distributed with less of a
> > one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the
> > desktop out and run a server onl
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop,
> because they seem to have been distributed with less of a
> one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the
> desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't a
Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:09:21AM -0800, Jason Jeremias wrote:
> > I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't
> > install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server
> > that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by defau
William H Bouterse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would also be helpful for rapid
> minimal size non-X server installs
select nothing and you'll get it! Well not truly minimal,
but around 150MB (in expert)
the true minimum is around 80MB (at least will be when glibc is stripped, 14MB
wort
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:09:21AM -0800, Jason Jeremias wrote:
> I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't
> install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server
> that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default.
That's Mandrake. Imagine, Ma
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:18:55AM -0700, David Dennis wrote:
> Question: This list seems primarily focused for employees of
> Mandrake-Cooker. I would prefer not to bog down this list with long
> winded comment off topic here -- would you be able to recommend a mail
> list more appropriate to a
Yo!
[...]
>
> in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop,
> because they seem to have been distributed with less of a
> one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the
> desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, bu
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't
> install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc.
> Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and it
> proceeds to install a bunch of stuff I would never put on my server.
> Then I spend t
Jason Jeremias wrote:
>
> I'd really like to see a server only install. Something that doesn't
> install any X, KDE, GNOME, etc. Just a good ol console runing server
> that (take an example from openbsd) is secure by default.
>
> Really drives me nuts when I do a server install of Mandrake and
in a way this is just mandrake, lots of linuces install without a desktop,
because they seem to have been distributed with less of a
one-size-fits-all approach. to be fair 7.0 was also easy to pull the
desktop out and run a server only install. i haven't attempted since, but
it's a feature that
19 matches
Mail list logo
