On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 10:08:49PM -0700, wex wrote: > Actually the very first thing I did was download the new sarge 2 weeks > ago, and I did so with excitement and high expectations. And I will say > this for other people's benefit it is definitely a beta installer.
Yup. > It gave me a various range of problems that I won't go into; plus; it > seems as though it actually gave me less autonomy although there was > an expert mode I did not use. In particular the bootloader process > was f$cked In what way was it broken? There were some errata in beta3, should be fixed in beta4. > I don't know what the exact intent was in re-doing the installer and i > am sure there is an important underlying reason, It had become impossible to maintain or significantly extend the old one, and the old installer was built in such a way as to discourage all but the most dedicated developers. > but it is unfortunate that it makes the already hardest distribution > to install harder. We've in fact had many reports saying "this is much easier than the woody installer". Of course there are bugs, not helped by trying to track a distribution in development, but they're generally stomped on pretty quickly. > By the way what I don't understand is why sarge isn't coming with an > option to load the 2.6 kernel, who really wants the 2.4 kernel at this > point? Quite a few people, actually. However, 2.6 support has been added recently; it's still raw, but sarge should release with a 2.6 option at least on i386, maybe powerpc as well. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
