Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
have sort of bothered me. So
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
However, Woody (which was released analogous to RH9) was just as rock
solid stable as Sarge. I agree completely that we must compare
relatively equal systems, but doing so does not change the outcome:
Debian Stable lives up to its name.
I was using
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 22:37 -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > > solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
> ^
> > > computer
>
> any machine can boot and run in the unplugge
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:32 -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
> >
> >> Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
> >>
> >
> > Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
> >
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> To be fair, RH9 was released 03/31/2003, while Sarge was released
> 06/06/2005. I would say that a difference of 2+ years would be quite
> significant in terms of hardware support and general application
> stability.
bingo ...
some folks like
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > solid. Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged
^
> > computer
any machine can boot and run in the unplugged state,
otherwise your config is not properly configured
but, ob
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
Debian stable may be able to run on an unplugged computer
Maybe it's because you use Stable? Why I unplug the machine while
using Sid, it just dies. :)
Your /etc/rununplugged.rc file must be hosed. M
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:03 -0700, charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> > Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
> > mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> > have sort of bothered me. So, today
charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
>
>>Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
>>mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
>>have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
>>
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 23:03, charles norwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> > mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> > have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
> > and wow, am I impressed.
> Under r
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:58 -0700, John wrote:
> Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and have
> mainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versions
> have sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the first time,
> and wow, am I impressed. I
Really great news. I am also shifted here like you :)On 4/6/06, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, just wanted to say I've used various versions of linux, and havemainly stuck with redhat/fedora (yeah, I know), but the latest versionshave sort of bothered me. So, today I tried debian for the firs
Roderick Cummings declaimed:
> ...but I have a dozen or so 486's, IPX's, udb's chugging along
Me too. Just because I can! And if I didn't keep the 486 up, what would
I do with that perfectly good ISA+microchannel SCSI card?
:-) PM
--
Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11
[EMAIL PROTEC
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:58:41PM -0500, Paul Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> %% martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> mfk> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300
> +0100]:
>
> >> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
>
> mfk> no karsten, you m
%% martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mfk> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300
+0100]:
>> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
mfk> no karsten, you messed the order up again!
That's a quote from Star Trek IV, actually.
--
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.14.2300 +0100]:
> ...must've been too much LDS back at Berkeley in the '60s
no karsten, you messed the order up again!
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
si
on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 06:40:46PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
> > LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
>
> LDS?
> LSB?
>
> i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, whic
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.2203 +0100]:
> LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
LDS?
LSB?
i've not seen LDS, but LSB is the linux standard base, which would be
the one dictating this...
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.
--On Saturday, January 12, 2002 13:03:27 -0800 "Karsten M. Self"
wrote:
LDS indicates /etc/{init,rc}.d, so RH is coming around to the standard.
Mind you, when I try explaining this to my RH friends, there's generally
strong resistence to the concept that Dweebian might have got this one
ri
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:19:27PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
> > Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
> >
> > RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
>
> they sure did. but in 7.0, re
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.12.0835 +0100]:
> Wrong. Cf: Nemeth, et al, or Frisch. Both cite /etc/{init,rc?}.d.
>
> RH invented the rc.d/ directory variant.
they sure did. but in 7.0, redhat provided the /etc/init.d symlink, and
i believe that 7.2 had it completely switched. im not s
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
>
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision. At this point I just have
> the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
> out for public addition/correction. (We use Solari
on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:26:41PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
> > Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
> > vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
>
> strictly sp
on Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:07:18AM +0800, Paolo Alexis Falcone ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Alec wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> >> > Does the RPM build process have an equival
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 06:27:13PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
> > If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
>
> dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
> yet, or wasn't the most popular packa
also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0152 +0100]:
> i also don't like that packages install all to /usr/local. i can see
> how ports would do this but i would expect software installed via
> sysinstall to go to /usr
i wouldn't, but its about as useful a discussion as which whisky is be
also sprach Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.1802 +0100]:
> Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing
> much of the pioneering work for the community (and maybe some grata
> for forcibly dragging us in the future like libc6). Sure they do make
> rough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 12:52 pm, Alec wrote:
> On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
> > I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
> > you fall so far behind,
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I like Mandrake for being smooth, and up-to-date.
> I *hate* Mandrake for being RPM-based: after a certain point,
> you fall so far behind, even when applying updates, that you
> have to upgrade to the latest version of the product. And let
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 January 2002 11:02 am, Paolo Alexis Falcone wrote:
> I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
>
> I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the
> good things it all has.
>
> Won
Alec wrote:
>On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
>> > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
>>
>> only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
>> functiona
I forgot where in my mailbox was the original post, but anyway I'll reply.
I like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution better than RedHat's for all the good
things it all has.
Won't say screw RedHat the Co., however. Thankful for them for doing much of the
pioneering work for the community (and mayb
* Adam Majer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > > > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
> > >
> > > You are more right than you think: every tim
From: Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Subject: Re: Debian Vs RedHat
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:21:13 -0500
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +01
also sprach Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0609 +0100]:
> For the benefit of a lurking newbie, what is "FHS-accordance"?
the filesystem hierarchy standard[1]. it specifies very exactly where
each file of a package *has* to go. that keeps the system very clean.
redhat doesn't do that
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
> > I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
> > to be as maintainable over the long haul.
>
> which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
On Thursday 10 January 2002 19:21, Stuart Krivis wrote:
> --On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> >> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of
> >> dpkg-shlibdeps?
also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0459 +0100]:
> If people want to complain about MS they can because they cannot fix
> anything. In unix if it suxs, you fix it so it doesn't suck... Simple
> enough? :)
h! now i get it! thanks! ;^>
damn, it's 5am again...
--
martin;
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:22:00AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
> >
> > You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
> > all I need to do is r
* Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> > > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
> >
> > only since recently... but in general, RPM
> I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just
> don't seem to be as maintainable over the long haul.
>
> Personally, I have issues with a binary-based distribution. I am
> enamored of the *BSD ports system and buildworld. :-)
while ports serve a certain purpose, i much prefe
also sprach Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0121 +0100]:
> I've never felt RPM was as good as DEB. RPM-based distros just don't seem
> to be as maintainable over the long haul.
which i attribute to the FHS-accordance of Debian. really.
> Personally, I have issues with a binary-base
also sprach Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.11.0037 +0100]:
> If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
how long before DEB did RPM exist?
(i don't know the answer. all i know about this is from having
participated (and read) discussions on what should be the LSB stan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 January 2002 05:37 pm, Alec wrote:
[snip]
> If RPM is good, why did Debian project feel compelled to create dpkg?
dpkg was created back in the early days. Either RPM wasn't written
yet, or wasn't the most popular packager.
- --
+
--On Friday, January 11, 2002 00:19:57 +0100 martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
func
also sprach nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2049 +0100]:
> i hear win2000 and XP improves on some issues, but
> after 8 years of using MS stuff(DOS3.x -> NT4) i left
> and never looked back. i gave them a fair chance, i don't
> think they deserve another.
excuse me? did you *ever* productivel
On Thursday 10 January 2002 06:19 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> > Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
>
> only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
> functionally equivalent. RPM
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.2042 +0100]:
> > www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
>
> You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix suckage,
> all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in Winders shops, and
> I immediately start
also sprach David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1854 +0100]:
> BTW, I see where you're heading. Yes, obviously, a great build
> environment will significantly ease a maintainer's burdens. But I still
> say that it's on the shoulders of the maintainer :)
but Debian's FHS-accordance is re
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.1834 +0100]:
> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
only since recently... but in general, RPM and DEB are really
functionally equivalent. RPM *is* a good packaging system, it's other
things which make .rpm based
> You are more right than you think: every time I run into new *nix
> suckage, all I need to do is remember the time when I worked in
> Winders shops, and I immediately start feeling better.
>
> Microsoft Helps!(tm)
yeah me too. about 3 years ago i quit a job at a company
that i was at for abo
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
> > Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
>
> c.f. debian ;)
>
> > Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
>
> www.microsoft.com might
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:34:33 -0600
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
> > nothing whatsoever to do with the packaging software involved.
> >
> > :)
>
> Does the RPM build process have an equivalent of dpkg-shlibdeps?
Yea
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:16:04AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
> Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
> > IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
> > have the same problem.
>
> Of course, that's a
also sprach Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.10.0610 +0100]:
> Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
have a look at openoffice.org or star office. what do you dislike about
them? i prefer openoffice btw, it seems faster...
--
martin; (greetings fr
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:10:51 -0800
Calyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
> IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never
> have the same problem.
Of course, that's a function of the maintainers and has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with
Perhaps it's time to get to Woody?
IMO rpm system sucks dependencies are never correct. Debs never have the
same
problem.
Linux have another problem in itself... no decently good office suite.
Calyth
On 09/01/02 Robert L. Harris did speaketh:
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
>
> RedHat:
> Desktop Oriented
Wow, I have three Debian desktops and one Debian server. I don't see how
Debian is not desktop oriented too. Hell, at least the complex desktop apps
install 10 times easier than crawling
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2344 +0100]:
> Pretty b0rken ATM: stable is way too old for many uses,
c.f. debian ;)
> Bottom line: they both suck, although in different ways.
www.microsoft.com might be able to help ;^>
--
martin; (greetings from the h
* Robert L. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
>
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision.
Oh no, not another distro war...
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
> Integraged software install/update tool (apt) [a version is available for
> redhat
> but requires considerable time
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 04:25 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> > RedHat:
> > No pre-installed install/update tool (apt)
>
> in fact, if you want to use the update service, you'll pay!
>
autorpm
Never used it myself, but it is said to provide functionality similar to apt.
You can ftp updates
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 12:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> I'm starting a "Debian Vs Redhat" comparision. At this point I just have
> the ball rolling. Many other people showed interest so I'm throwing this
> out for public addition/correction. (We use Solaris systems so the
> SYSV/BSD is
"Robert L. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RedHat:
> Bug tracking system is not available for searching
While I get the impression that debian's bug system is more open and
more widely used, Red Hat does in fact have one at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ which, as you might gue
The /etc/rc.d/ construction is, AFAIK, a beast of Red Hat origin. Recent
version (starting with 7.x, maybe?) symlink /etc/rc.d/init.d and the
various rc#.d directories directly into /etc as a convenience for people
who are used to the more traditional SysV layout, but functionally it's
always been
also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2217 +0100]:
> Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/
> vs /etc/rc.d/*) what term would be correct?
strictly speaking, /etc/rc.d/* is the proper SysV way, but these days
even RedHat uses /etc/{init,rc?}.d
also sprach Robert L. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.09.2146 +0100]:
> Debian:
> Server Oriented
not necessarily... it's pretty alround if you ask me. and so is redhat,
> Publicly available 3 tier development cycle (dev, test, production)
> Publicly available bug archive for testing an
Ok then. When talking about locations of files, paths (/etc/init.d/ vs
/etc/rc.d/*)
what term would be correct?
Thus spake Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> > RedHat:
>
> > System layout is BSD
>
> Nay. IMHO, "SysV layout" ref
On Wednesday 09 January 2002 03:46 pm, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> RedHat:
> System layout is BSD
Nay. IMHO, "SysV layout" refers to a bunch of symlinks that are called with
"start" or "stop" arguments, while "BSD layout" refers to some sort of
unified script. I prefer the former and, AFAIK, b
You can add yourself entries in the menus of your window manager.
I use fvwm2 and there are hooks in your .fvwmrc2 that allow you to
customize
your wm. Just read your fvwmrc2 or equivalent, I've never done it but it
should be very easy.
--
Vera Mickael Stagiaire
John Gay writes:
> When potato freezes, then I'll update.
Don't update immediately after the freeze. There is often substantial
breakage then. Wait a few weeks, and watch the lists for warnings.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Do
Thanks for the note about potato, but I am still running slink. I am to new to
Linux and UNIX in general to even attempt to stay at the bleeding edge. When
potato freezes, then I'll update.
I've used alien once or twice before, but thanks for the info. How do you update
the menu manually, though
Thanks for the tip!
"John Gay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I recently picked up PC PLUS magazine, it has great Linux coverage
> this issue.
> StarOffice and Netscape 4.7 for Linux Plus loads of other Linux
> software as
> well. It also has an interview with Colin Fenwick, VP for RedHat
> Europe. I
> almost chok
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 02:29:34PM -0400, Bryan Scaringe wrote:
> I never did get the dhcpcd client (the new one, with 2.2.x support) under
> either RedHat or Debian. But dhclient is a much cleaner program.
Its in the dhcpcd-sv package in potato. The init script is really
clever, it won't start dh
->> who have administered both dists.
I have administered both boxes. As mentioned with redhat you can not use
both linuxconf and edit the scripts by hand. As far as the scripts with
redhat once you inderstand how they are put together you can edit them by
hand just as easy as another dist. My big
My reason for moving from RedHat (5.2) to Debian was configurability.
I have a cable modem, and connect to the internet via a DHCP client.
Redhat uses "dhcpcd" for this, as does most of the rest of the linux world.
Hoverver, after going to 2.2.x kernels, dhcpcd 0.70 croaks. I couldn't get
1) Ease of upgrade was a big decider for me (I switched over 2-1/2 years
ago--I can't speak for recent Red Hat releases). With Debian you can
upgrade a running system. Red Hat required booting with the equivalent
of a rescue disk in order to upgrade.
2) In spite of all the complaints it gets, I
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Steve Stancliff wrote:
> as sysadmin of that system, and due to the way the installation have been
> over-customized, I am going
> to reinstall them.
> am going to try and convince my boss that as long as we
> are reinstalling, we
> should switch to Debian. I have my list of
Hello,
William R Pentney:
> Furthermore, is there a method of searching by package description,
less /var/lib/dpkg/available
HTH
Jiri
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently
quotes lines that begin with "From ", but no-one remembers why.
Jae W. Chang:
> Yes, dselect isn't perfect. It doesn't have the most intuitive UI but...
Can I nominate that for the understatement of the month? :-)
...
> I'll forgo the useless UI feature set for something that just works.
Another wonderful thing with dselect is that you can mix it with calls
> "Brent" == Brent A Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brent> Here's the fun part. What it *tries* to do is very good
Brent> and powerful. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be able to
Brent> do it without generating profuse errors faster than the eye
Brent> can read for scree
On Sun, Apr 18, 1999 at 09:02:30PM -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> You don't see that as a terrible indictment of dselect? What kind of
> installation system makes you select your options in *increments*?
It doesn't require it, it's just a sensible policy to install what you
know you need and then go
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Carl Fink wrote:
>
> You don't see that as a terrible indictment of dselect? What kind of
> installation system makes you select your options in *increments*?
>
> Especially when, without apt, it makes you sit around for twenty
> minutes on each cycle while pointlessly listi
Jan Muszynski wrote:
>
> On 18 Apr 99, at 12:31, Stephan Goldenberg
> wrote about Re: Debian vs. RedHat:
> This newbie found it easy just selecting one of the pre-configured
> installs. You can then fine tune the package selection after the
> initial configuration is inst
In linux.debian.user, Michael Schuerig wrote:
>
>I don't think it qualifies you as dumb, but is not a good idea to
>install each and every package you might need the first time around. Get
>a basic system running and then selectively install packages you want.
You don't see that as a terrible indi
On 18 Apr 99, at 12:31, Stephan Goldenberg
wrote about Re: Debian vs. RedHat:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 1999 at 11:04:53PM +0100, Matt wrote:
> > Dan Nguyen wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > > : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, Apr 16, 1999 at 11:04:53PM +0100, Matt wrote:
> Dan Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > : Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : :It's unfortunate that the Debian install is difficult in comparison to
> > :
talling:
actually getting it installed is just the start of a long road...
David
Brian Servis wrote:
>
> *- On 16 Apr, Dan Nguyen wrote about "Re: Debian vs. RedHat"
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
&
"Jae W. Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, dselect isn't perfect. It doesn't have the most intuitive UI but...
An ode to dselect/apt:
I clean installed Slink via ftp with dselect/apt. Just rigged the
whole thing for download and went to bed. In the morning I only had to
press Enter a cou
*- On 16 Apr, Dan Nguyen wrote about "Re: Debian vs. RedHat"
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : :It's unfortunate that the Debian install is difficu
Dan Nguyen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : :It's unfortunate that the Debian install is difficult in comparison to
> : :RedHat.
Having just switched to Debian 2.1 from RH 5.2, I think the
Yes, dselect isn't perfect. It doesn't have the most intuitive UI but...
It'll also do the most amazing, surprising thing... actually work!
Even when I don't expect it to work, it works!
Several times while upgrading from hamm or whatever and seeing a list
of 100 packages needing to be upgraded,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: :It's unfortunate that the Debian install is difficult in comparison to
: :RedHat.
: In some ways, I actually think it's hard compared to Slackware. And
: that's BAD..
93 matches
Mail list logo
