Koyote wrote:
It would be nice if Debian had a similar one-floppy net install arrangement.
Hmm, seems to me that though it may take a bit more (nine floppies for slink)
the same thing
is available.
Shouldn't be too hard to set up an install based on three floppies
(the
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 12:40:53PM +, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Koyote wrote:
Ah, but any more than one is a problem for a machine with a USB floppy drive!
Since most USB machines will have a bootable cdrom drive they dont have to use
a single floppy.
I think you're missing my point.
: Re: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:21:36AM +0100, Patrick Kirk was heard to state:
I also graduated from Red Hat. Debian installation is a beast but it
leaves
you with a working system that is idiot proof. Red Hat is an easier
installation but things fail
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 07:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't wanna start a flame war, but it is reeelly all that difficult to use
7(or is it 9? -I forget) installation disks instead of two?.
Well ...
I remember doing an install on a system with a dodgy disk drive. Making
the
I don't wanna start a flame war, but it is reeelly all that difficult to use
7(or is it 9? -I forget) installation disks instead of two?.
7 or 9 disks?!? I just downloaded the files for the base installation to my
harddrive and used my *1* rescue disk that I created from an image to
kick-start
takes a computer
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. september 1999 13:59
Til:debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: recipient list not shown
Emne: Re: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Ron Stordahl wrote:
: Richard said:
:
: That puts you a cd behind :) The single-floppy is a downloaded floppy,
: which then sucks the rest off the net without even having a cd drive. And
: the floppy costs a lot less :)
:
: True, but incredibly slow, unless you
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:40:06AM -0400, David Teague wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Paul McHale wrote:
If you have bizaar hardware, redhat (I believe) has more drivers.
Redhat has more packages but this may be an arguement for alien.
Paul
I have acquaintances who never did get X up
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Paul McHale wrote:
If you have bizaar hardware, redhat (I believe) has more drivers.
Redhat has more packages but this may be an arguement for alien.
Paul
I have acquaintances who never did get X up under Red Hat using the
SiS6326 card. That card is apparently S3
else ? If I am wrong, please tell me !
-Original Message-
From: David Teague [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 8:40 AM
To: Paul McHale
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Paul McHale wrote
anyone else ? If I am wrong, please tell me !
-Original Message-
From: David Teague [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 8:40 AM
To: Paul McHale
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 11:21:36AM +0100, Patrick Kirk was heard to state:
I also graduated from Red Hat. Debian installation is a beast but it leaves
you with a working system that is idiot proof. Red Hat is an easier
installation but things fail and you're left trawling the net resolving
Damon dabbled,
Seeing Debian is such an internet-centric (ie., apt) distribution, it
would be nice if you could install the whole thing with one the one or
two boot disks (I'm sure you can with redhat). Even if the boot disk had
a little FTP client (like wget or curl), so you could switch to
On 1 Sep, Mark Brown wrote:
Doing a distribution upgrade without *having* to reboot is rather nice.
It is not only rather nice. It is wonderful! We chose Debian becuase it
is a great distro when it comes to admin in remotely. Our server is
co-located on another continent than our company
Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
Damon dabbled,
Seeing Debian is such an internet-centric (ie., apt) distribution, it
would be nice if you could install the whole thing with one the one or
two boot disks (I'm sure you can with redhat). Even if the boot disk had
a little FTP client (like wget
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
Damon dabbled,
Seeing Debian is such an internet-centric (ie., apt) distribution, it
would be nice if you could install the whole thing with one the one or
two boot disks (I'm sure you can with redhat). Even if
David said:
How does zero floppy install stack up?
I installed my latest Debian slink from a single CD with no floppy
at all. In fact the floppy did not work at all, a fact I didn't
discover until much later. Once the system was up, I pulled all the
updates off the net.
--David
David
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 3:53 PM
To: Adam C Powell IV
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
Damon dabbled,
Seeing Debian is such an internet
On 03-Sep-99 Ron Stordahl wrote:
David said:
How does zero floppy install stack up?
I installed my latest Debian slink from a single CD with no floppy
at all. In fact the floppy did not work at all, a fact I didn't
discover until much later. Once the system was up, I pulled all the
How does zero floppy install stack up?
I installed my latest Debian slink from a single CD with no floppy
at all. In fact the floppy did not work at all, a fact I didn't
discover until much later. Once the system was up, I pulled all the
updates off the net.
That puts you a cd behind :)
Richard said:
That puts you a cd behind :) The single-floppy is a downloaded floppy,
which then sucks the rest off the net without even having a cd drive. And
the floppy costs a lot less :)
True, but incredibly slow, unless you have your own T1. A standard
workstation install is 400 mb or
ron rattled,
Richard said:
That puts you a cd behind :) The single-floppy is a downloaded floppy,
which then sucks the rest off the net without even having a cd drive. And
the floppy costs a lot less :)
True, but incredibly slow, unless you have your own T1. A standard
workstation
6:02 PM
To: Paul McHale
Cc: debian-user
Subject: boot from hd (was RE: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?)
2. Said it would make my HD bootable, didn't. I still boot
from floppies so
if anyone can tell me where to look to change this... It's not
bad because
I almost never have
2. Said it would make my HD bootable, didn't. I still boot from floppies so
if anyone can tell me where to look to change this... It's not bad because
I almost never have to reboot :)
What does it do when you try to boot from the HD?
You might take a look at the LILO mini-HOWTO at
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999, Paul McHale wrote:
Thanks for the help ! I'll give this a try. When I boot I get 1F0 in the
upper left part of the screen. I think this is also the address of the
CDROM drive. Probably coincidence.
Actually the 1F0 is a prompt provided by the mbr package that
replaces
: Friday, September 03, 1999 6:18 PM
To: Paul McHale; Patrick Olson
Cc: debian-user
Subject: RE: boot from hd (was RE: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?)
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999, Paul McHale wrote:
Thanks for the help ! I'll give this a try. When I boot I get
1F0 in the
upper left part
Try pressing 'a', for 'A'dvanced. That should give you some more options, if
my memory serves correct. You probably have more partitions that 1, but they
aren't showing up.
On 03-Sep-99 Paul McHale wrote:
I was mistaken, it is 1FA. I am not sure how to enter 1. The exact prompt
is
1FA:
use Debian? Why not Red Hat?)
Try pressing 'a', for 'A'dvanced. That should give you some more
options, if
my memory serves correct. You probably have more partitions that
1, but they
aren't showing up.
On 03-Sep-99 Paul McHale wrote:
I was mistaken, it is 1FA. I am not sure how
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:11:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
[Slow releases]
This is a fallacy. The longest Debian release cycle I could find on
record was 7 months. In fact, that is the average. Red Hat and Slackware
have both had 7 month long release cycles.
At 02:24 PM 8/31/99 MDT, Duggan Dieterly wrote:
i'm thinking about switching from debian to red hat. is there any compelling
reason why debian is better than red hat?
--
Duggan Dieterlyvoice: (970) 898-7906
Software Design Engr
Hi,
[ no doubt ths comes up often so I hope no-one minds me commenting! ]
I'm sure you'll get lots of answers. For me the main points were:
PRO:
- More 'standards' compliant in the sense that I found that when I read the
HOWTOS in many cases the RH stuff wasn't in the places it said it would
Hi,
i'm thinking about switching from debian to red hat. is there any compelling
reason why debian is better than red hat?
--
Sure. Debian has a better package control system and can resolve the
dependence better. Apt is a superior tool. Can you find an equivalent one for
redhat?
Tuesday, August 31, 1999, 3:04:45 PM, Steve wrote:
- Speed of releases. Volunteers don't have the same amount of time as a
commercial operation so the releases tend to be few and far between. They
are very solid when they come along but it can be a bit galling if you want
to run up-to-date
True package management, including installation scripts. And a process
in place to keep packages out of the main distribution that don't follow a
standard for file locations, and other stuff.
In a word: stability
It's great for servers, end-users can use just about any version of Linux
and be
I'm not a techie so this is a user's perspective. Red Hat is just as free
as Debian so there's no issue there like there is with SuSE and Caldera.
There are far more Red Hat users out there and lots of RPMs. So give it a
try and decide for yourself. I use Debian because its so easy to keep it
At 01:43 01.09.99 -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Patrick,
I graduated from Red Hat to Debian twice. I was hard-headed and did not
learn the first time ... gave it a second chance. I came back to Debian.
The ONLY thing Red Hat has is an easy install ... upkeep of a Red Hat
system is a nightmare.
hi ya patrick/george
I graduated from Red Hat to Debian twice. I was hard-headed and did not
learn the first time ... gave it a second chance. I came back to Debian.
The ONLY thing Red Hat has is an easy install ... upkeep of a Red Hat
system is a nightmare.
install on rh ain't that
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 01:43:52AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Patrick,
I graduated from Red Hat to Debian twice. I was hard-headed and did not
learn the first time ... gave it a second chance. I came back to Debian.
The ONLY thing Red Hat has is an easy install ... upkeep of a Red Hat
PROTECTED]
To: Patrick Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Duggan Dieterly [EMAIL PROTECTED];
debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Why use Debian? Why not Red Hat?
Patrick,
I graduated from Red Hat to Debian twice. I was hard-headed and did not
learn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb) writes:
Tuesday, August 31, 1999, 3:04:45 PM, Steve wrote:
- Speed of releases. Volunteers don't have the same amount of time as a
commercial operation so the releases tend to be few and far between. They
are very solid when they come along but it can be a
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 11:04:45PM +0100, Steve George wrote:
[Please include line breaks within paragraphs and leave a blank line
between paragraphs]
- More 'standards' compliant in the sense that I found that when I read
the HOWTOS in many cases the RH stuff wasn't in the places it said it
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:11:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
[Slow releases]
This is a fallacy. The longest Debian release cycle I could find on
record was 7 months. In fact, that is the average. Red Hat and Slackware
have both had 7 month long release cycles. The shorter ones were for
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Hasso Tepper wrote:
Agree. I moved from Redhat to Debian 2 months ago and only app I'm missing
is printtool.
I like printool of redhat. So I used alien to debianized that thing. I
installed and it works(gui), but have not tested it yet.
Anyway, to comment on the original
nathan nattered,
True package management, including installation scripts. And a process
in place to keep packages out of the main distribution that don't follow a
standard for file locations, and other stuff.
But the biggest single reason: this list.
Most problems get resolved in a matter
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
True package management, including installation scripts. And a process
in place to keep packages out of the main distribution that don't follow a
standard for file locations, and other stuff.
But the biggest single reason: this list.
try and decide for yourself. I use Debian because its so easy to keep it
stable, because I think apt-get is way way easier than rpm and because the
support offered by this list is great.
I agree with the former two reasons, but from my experiences, Red Hat's
list was much better. Not to put
Duggan Dieterly wrote:
i'm thinking about switching from debian to red hat. is there any compelling
reason why debian is better than red hat?
--
Yes, Debian is technically superior (IMHO) - plus the official Debs is
free software and upholds the principles of free software (see the GNU
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Hasso Tepper wrote:
Agree. I moved from Redhat to Debian 2 months ago and only app I'm missing
is printtool.
...Which works fine using alien...
-Brad
I have put redhat on a system here several times, and each time had
some minor problems with it.
5.0 and 5.1 had the ftp daemon broken, I couldn't ftp to the box. 6.0
has the nfs daemon broken, I can't seem to mount any filesystem of the
box on another box (running debian slink). I can mount
i'm thinking about switching from debian to red hat. is there any compelling
reason why debian is better than red hat?
--
Duggan Dieterlyvoice: (970) 898-7906
Software Design Engr fax: (970) 898-3684
Hewlett-Packard Co.
50 matches
Mail list logo
