jeff wrote:
A suggestion, if you use gentoo, I would look into compiling on a
different machine. It would make it faster, also take less disk space.
Just use distcc and rm -fr /var/tmp/portage when finished. :)
Steve
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
|
A suggestion, if you use gentoo, I would look into compiling on a
different machine. It would make it faster, also take less disk space.
Nicholas Leippe wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:05 pm, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
Which distribution would you say would be the best for a LAMP server.
Th
We like to use Slackware for a trimmed down server. It is like Debian
in preferring to be stable instead of bleeding edge. Even the latest
Slackware doesn't even let you choose to install Kernel 2.6, for
example. It has great hardware support as well.
Eric Jensen
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
Whic
On Thursday 24 February 2005 09:06 am, Roberto Mello wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:51:49AM -0700, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> > compile my own apache and php to suite my needs exactly. With Gentoo,
> > it's easy to tell the package system that they are in fact installed, so
> > that other depen
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:51:49AM -0700, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> compile my own apache and php to suite my needs exactly. With Gentoo, it's
> easy to tell the package system that they are in fact installed, so that
> other dependencies are still correctly met. This is a feature that I have
>
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:05 pm, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> Which distribution would you say would be the best for a LAMP server.
> The machine is an OLD AMD K6-2 500MHz, 128MB RAM system. I want a
> lightning fast simple, trimmed down, non gui loaded Linux distribution.
> Any suggestions?
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:50:35AM -0700, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> Is there an installation media that is just as friendly as the "testing"
> version, aka Sarge, for the "stable" version, aka Woody? Did I just
> pick the wrong CDs?
That "friendly" installer is one of the new features in testin
Dave Smith wrote:
Just to clarify:
Sarge *is* Debian. Sarge is a nickname for the "testing" distribution of
Debian. This is explained here:
http://www.debian.org/releases/
Using *any* Debian install media (netinst, Sarge business card, etc) you
can get to *any* other distribution of Debian, wh
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
How is Sarge's support for ReiserFS? Does Sarge's setup contain more
network modules then Debian?
Just to clarify:
Sarge *is* Debian. Sarge is a nickname for the "testing" distribution of
Debian. This is explained here:
http://www.debian.org/releases/
Using *any* Debia
Corey Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:45, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
How is Sarge different from Debian?
Sarge is the codename for the soon-to-be-released version of Debian,
just as the current stable release is known as Woody. Each version is
named after a Toy Story character. Sid, Sarge, Wo
Corey Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:45, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
How is Sarge different from Debian?
Sarge is the codename for the soon-to-be-released version of Debian,
just as the current stable release is known as Woody. Each version is
named after a Toy Story character. Sid, Sarge, Wo
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:45, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> How is Sarge different from Debian?
Sarge is the codename for the soon-to-be-released version of Debian,
just as the current stable release is known as Woody. Each version is
named after a Toy Story character. Sid, Sarge, Woody, Potato, Slink,
David Smith wrote:
David Smith wrote:
I have always loved Debian for this kind of setup. I usually use the
testing distribution, to avoid the massive updates in unstable and the
old
package versions in stable. The install footprint is small for a minimal
install, around 200Mb, and even a 90Mhz pro
Corey Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:25, David Smith wrote:
Yes, you only need one CD. I usually find the smallest netinst with a 2.4
kernel (this was about 2 years ago), and use that. Try it here:
http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/
This one (unofficial) is only 186MB:
http://ftp.fi.debia
Well Debian was a bust. Not only did it not support ReiserFS, but it
also did not detect my Network card like the other distributions, plus
when I went to enable the module, it isn't even listed. I guess it's
off to the next contestant. I was really looking for to playing with
APT. Maybe I
Corey Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:25, David Smith wrote:
Yes, you only need one CD. I usually find the smallest netinst with a 2.4
kernel (this was about 2 years ago), and use that. Try it here:
http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/
This one (unofficial) is only 186MB:
http://ftp.fi.debia
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:05 pm, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> Which distribution would you say would be the best for a LAMP server.
> The machine is an OLD AMD K6-2 500MHz, 128MB RAM system. I want a
> lightning fast simple, trimmed down, non gui loaded Linux distribution.
> Any suggestions?
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 22:25, David Smith wrote:
> Yes, you only need one CD. I usually find the smallest netinst with a 2.4
> kernel (this was about 2 years ago), and use that. Try it here:
>
> http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/
>
> This one (unofficial) is only 186MB:
>
> http://ftp.fi.debia
> David Smith wrote:
>> I have always loved Debian for this kind of setup. I usually use the
>> testing distribution, to avoid the massive updates in unstable and the
>> old
>> package versions in stable. The install footprint is small for a minimal
>> install, around 200Mb, and even a 90Mhz proce
David Smith wrote:
I have always loved Debian for this kind of setup. I usually use the
testing distribution, to avoid the massive updates in unstable and the old
package versions in stable. The install footprint is small for a minimal
install, around 200Mb, and even a 90Mhz processor with 48Mb RAM
> Which distribution would you say would be the best for a LAMP server.
> The machine is an OLD AMD K6-2 500MHz, 128MB RAM system. I want a
> lightning fast simple, trimmed down, non gui loaded Linux distribution.
> Any suggestions? I have heard that Gentoo, Debian, or Slackware are
> the most
Which distribution would you say would be the best for a LAMP server.
The machine is an OLD AMD K6-2 500MHz, 128MB RAM system. I want a
lightning fast simple, trimmed down, non gui loaded Linux distribution.
Any suggestions? I have heard that Gentoo, Debian, or Slackware are
the most sleek d
22 matches
Mail list logo
