On Wed, 2025-05-21 at 15:16 -0700, Peter Ehlert wrote:
> > It's not quite the same. What Dan is asking for is that each wiki
> > page should identify when it was updated and for which named
> > release(s) of Debian it is valid. So even if it's out of date it
> > may be useful to somebody, or it may
On 2025-05-22, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed May 21, 2025 at 5:01 PM BST, Greg wrote:
>> Why propose yet again the exact thing I proposed upthread (that you
>> required me to spell out with ludicrous explicitness and that you
>> described as unhelpful), as if you've arrived at some epiphany?
>
On Wed May 21, 2025 at 5:01 PM BST, Greg wrote:
Why propose yet again the exact thing I proposed upthread (that you
required me to spell out with ludicrous explicitness and that you
described as unhelpful), as if you've arrived at some epiphany?
What is your problem, anyway?
I didn't think I
On 5/19/25 13:22, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
Greg wrote:
On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
any id
On 2025-05-20, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> ... I prefer ... the assumption to be that all
> pages applied to the current stable release...
Why propose yet again the exact thing I proposed upthread (that you
required me to spell out with ludicrous explicitness and that you
described as unhelpful),
> 4) You want to rewrite not only the WIKI CONTENT, but the WIKI ENGINE too.
I really appreciate your constructive contributions, thank you.
Stefan
On 2025-05-21, john doe wrote:
Then refrain from prolonging it.
please stop this.
--
John Doe
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:47:04 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Greg Wooledge [2025-05-20 16:49:28] wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 16:38:16 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> In contrast my proposition means that when a new release happens we just
> >> get a new set of pages, which start empty (
Greg Wooledge [2025-05-20 16:49:28] wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 16:38:16 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> In contrast my proposition means that when a new release happens we just
>> get a new set of pages, which start empty (this part can be done fully
>> automatically) and can be filled progre
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 16:38:16 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> In contrast my proposition means that when a new release happens we just
> get a new set of pages, which start empty (this part can be done fully
> automatically) and can be filled progressively, which should be much
> more amenable to
Jonathan Dowland [2025-05-20 18:48:27] wrote:
> On Tue May 20, 2025 at 4:04 PM BST, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
>> Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
>> version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don'
"Jonathan Dowland" wrote:
> On Tue May 20, 2025 at 4:04 PM BST, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
> >
> > Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
> > version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
On Tue May 20, 2025 at 4:04 PM BST, Stefan Monnier wrote:
FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
"DebianBootstrap" page, but the "DebianBoot
Greg wrote:
> On 2025-05-20, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
> >
> > Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
> > version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
> > "DebianBootstrap" page, but t
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:56:05 +0100
"Jonathan Dowland" wrote:
> On Mon May 19, 2025 at 2:03 PM BST, Greg wrote:
> > On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >> On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >>> The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
> >>> sens
On 2025-05-20, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
>
> Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
> version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
> "DebianBootstrap" page, but the "DebianBootstrap/trixie"
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:04:58 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
>
> Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
> version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
> "DebianBootstrap" page, but th
> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up to date" useful feedback.
Here's my view: replace each current page with a list of "per Debian
version" pages. So, when someone edits a page, they don't edit the
"DebianBootstrap" page, but the "DebianBootstrap/trixie" page.
The "DebianBootstrap" page would presu
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 14:21:32 -, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-05-20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:41:21 -0400, Lee wrote:
> >> Yes, keeping the wikis up to date for the current release would be
> >> nice. But there isn't staff dedicated to keeping everything current,
> >> s
Greg writes:
> The wiki engine automatically displays a "last modified" timestamp
> (it's at the bottom, in the light gray footer box), but you won't
> immediately know whether that update was a major content rewrite, or a
> typo correction.
More useful might be a prominent field that specifies w
On 2025-05-20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:41:21 -0400, Lee wrote:
>> Yes, keeping the wikis up to date for the current release would be
>> nice. But there isn't staff dedicated to keeping everything current,
>> so how about having a "last updated" or "last reviewed" date on
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:41:21 -0400, Lee wrote:
> Yes, keeping the wikis up to date for the current release would be
> nice. But there isn't staff dedicated to keeping everything current,
> so how about having a "last updated" or "last reviewed" date on each
> page so people would have an idea
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:31 AM Greg wrote:
>
> On 2025-05-20, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >>
> >> That's what I said more succinctly. Keep the wikis up to date (I thought
> >> it went without saying "for Debian stable," though there's always a
> >> myriad of ways to be misunderstood but normally on
On 2025-05-20, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>
>> That's what I said more succinctly. Keep the wikis up to date (I thought
>> it went without saying "for Debian stable," though there's always a
>> myriad of ways to be misunderstood but normally only one way to be so).
>
> FWIW I didn't find "keep it up
On Mon May 19, 2025 at 2:03 PM BST, Greg wrote:
On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
any idea whether it is cor
Greg wrote:
> On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >> The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
> >> sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
> >> any idea whether it is correct for current
On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
>> sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
>> any idea whether it is correct for current Stable.
That's what I s
On 2025-05-15, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> It's less clear how useful the current wiki is for users. I think many
> of us are inspired by how good the Arch Wiki is for users, and the
> Debian wiki falls far short of that. I guess we should try to improve it
> for user
On 5/15/25 03:52, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
It's less clear how useful the current wiki is for users. I think many
of us are inspired by how good the Arch Wiki is for users, and the
Debian wiki falls far short of that. I guess we should try to improve
it for users, but we don't have
; > are not specific to a distribution, as evidenced by the fact that
> > Debian users often find the Arch wiki useful.
>
> I agree that the Debian Wiki should strive to document
> Debian-specific stuff. I recently deleted (sort-of) the page
> DotFiles¹, after a brief discus
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
any idea whether it is correct for current Stable.
Thank you. That is useful feedback, and I agree that we should
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 5:45 PM BST, Stefan Monnier wrote:
one of the problems I see in the world of GNU/Linux is this tendency
to have "per-distribution" documentation for thing which are not
specific to a distribution, as evidenced by the fact that Debian users
often find the Arch w
page should
be used to add a piece of info.
It's less clear how useful the current wiki is for users. I think many
of us are inspired by how good the Arch Wiki is for users, and the
Debian wiki falls far short of that. I guess we should try to improve it
for users, but we don't have co
fic to
> a distribution,
+1
> as evidenced by the fact that Debian users often find
> the Arch wiki useful.
> I wish the Arch wiki and Debian wiki (and others, obviously) could
> *share* their effort somehow.
They can, even if the Arch wiki people would not want to cooperate (whi
Jonathan Dowland [2025-05-15 09:52:23] wrote:
> On Wed May 14, 2025 at 7:45 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> I don't think anyone at the Arch project or the Debian project
>> would say that Arch is based on Debian.
> ACK
>> It is certainly the case that their documentation
On Thursday, May 15, 2025 09:33:27 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> on every single page. The right thing for the Debian Wiki would
> be:
>
> Documentation → Debian 12 Bookworm
> Stable Version: 12 Bookworm
> Long Term Support Version: 11 Bullseye
> Unsupported Versions: 10 / 9 / 8 / 7 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 2
of pages for Debconfs, summers of code, etc.,
> and well-maintained pages for some developer tools.
>
> It's less clear how useful the current wiki is for users. I think many of us
> are inspired by how good the Arch Wiki is for users, and the Debian wiki
> falls far short of that. I g
On Wed May 14, 2025 at 7:45 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
I don't think anyone at the Arch project or the Debian project
would say that Arch is based on Debian.
ACK
It is certainly the case that their documentation is good, and
although not universally applicable to Debian packages, can
On 20/05/2023 13:35, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
My query was different: whether I would shift out of Debian to Arch?
It highly depends on your activities. They are quite different.
It is not the case when similar questions causing flames and holy wars
when general recommendation is to install the
ki.debian.org/LXDE has almost
> nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on
> LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native
> wiki website of LXDE is non-existent.
You will get many answers: t
Dear songbird,
songbird writes:
> Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> ...
>> Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly.
>>
>> Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye.
>
> :) i'm running testing with bits of unstable and
> just tagging along on this thread because i feel a
> bit ch
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
...
> Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly.
>
> Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye.
:) i'm running testing with bits of unstable and
just tagging along on this thread because i feel a
bit chatty this morning so a bit of story time and
pref
ven interface that allows a bird's eye view of all
> programs. I think I would stick to OpenBox.
OK ( said the happy XFCE user )
> My query was different: whether I would shift out of Debian to Arch?
> Perhaps you missed out my core message.
Could be. However I'm fairly sure it wa
ebian.org/LXDE has almost
> nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on
> LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native
> wiki website of LXDE is non-existent.
>
A lot of information on
uld shift out of Debian to Arch?
Perhaps you missed out my core message. May be my email could be read
once more please, Mr. Hwang.
Best wishes
rg/LXDE has almost
> nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on
> LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native
> wiki website of LXDE is non-existent.
>
> ArchLinux LXDE is not Debian LXDE.
My dear illustrious leaders and senior list members of debian-user ML,
I hope I will have a clear reply on the matter by the end of the
inputs received for this query.
For example, in Debian https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE has almost
nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 at 15:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> You've been bitten by a subtle but unfortunately common problem,
> yes. In multi-arch systems the versions of packages have to be totally
> in sync. But the +b1 syntax here means that the i386 package has had a
> binNMU (
Mark wrote:
>
>I have a package installation problem which leads to a question about
>how (and if) package versions interact in different architectures.
>
>My system is an amd64 bookworm system, with multi-arch support and
>some packages from i386 installed, to support a vendor
Hi list
I have a package installation problem which leads to a question about
how (and if) package versions interact in different architectures.
My system is an amd64 bookworm system, with multi-arch support and
some packages from i386 installed, to support a vendor-supplied
printer driver and
re the ArchWiki U2F page with the Debian Wiki one:
> >
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Universal_2nd_Factor
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Security/U2F
> >
> > The Debian page contains much less information than the Arch one, and
> > some of the information i
.archlinux.org/title/Universal_2nd_Factor
> https://wiki.debian.org/Security/U2F
>
> The Debian page contains much less information than the Arch one, and
> some of the information it does contain (the claim that SSH is "not
> supported yet") is just plain wrong (outdated
nal preference; ArchWiki is just
objectively (often? usually?) much better than Debian Wiki. A recent
example: compare the ArchWiki U2F page with the Debian Wiki one:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Universal_2nd_Factor
https://wiki.debian.org/Security/U2F
The Debian page contains much less inform
On Vi, 01 mai 20, 14:05:42, Dale Harris wrote:
>
> It was pretty much a fresh install from DVD. I did have some issues
> remounting the install DVD from the ILO, but otherwise it pretty normal
> install.
Was the system fully up-to-date before attempting to install wine32?
> It's working now.
T
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
>
> Apparently your system has received the security update for amd64, but
> not for i386.
>
> My guess is this the reason for the divergence between the amd64 and
> i386 on your system and you should look into it.
>
It was pretty much a fre
On Mi, 29 apr 20, 09:35:12, Dale Harris wrote:
>
> Okay, did some of that, the one that really blows up is libicu63:i386, when
> I try to install that it was to remove most of the amd64 packages.
>
> # apt-cache policy libicu63:i386
> libicu63:i386:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 63.1-6
>
On 2020-04-29 at 10:04, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dale Harris wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
>>> installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-t
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dale Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
>> installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-things
>> explosion, the important packages that woul
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer wrote:
>
> Random stabs in the direction of developing a usable set of steps to
> follow: since you suspect the system may have a problem with i386
> packages to begin with, it might be useful to know whether you actually
> have any already installed.
Sorry for the delayed response; I was responding in gaps mid-shift on
Monday, and then spent Tuesday actually in the office instead of working
remotely.
On 2020-04-27 at 15:05, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On initial examination, I see no meaning
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>
> On initial examination, I see no meaningful issues in that output.
>
> Just to check: is the output of that 'apt-cache policy' command any
> different if you replace 'libwine' with 'libwine:i386'?
>
> If so, please pass along the output from
On 2020-04-27 at 14:14, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:21 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> What do you get from
>>
>> $ apt-cache show wine wine32:i386 libwine
>>
>> $ apt-cache policy libc6
>>
>> apt-cache policy $(apt-cache show libwine | grep Depends | sed 's/[:,]
>> /\n/g' | sed
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:21 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>
>
> What do you get from
>
> $ apt-cache show wine wine32:i386 libwine
>
$ apt-cache policy libc6
>
> apt-cache policy $(apt-cache show libwine | grep Depends | sed 's/[:,]
> /\n/g' | sed 's/\([^ ]*\) .*$/\1/g' | grep -v Depends | sort -u )
>
ed to run requires the 32 bit version of wine, so if I
> can't get this installed, this will all become rather academic. But I can
> install wine. Really it just seems like the system doesn't like the i386
> foreign arch, for some reason.
Yeah, it looks like that's the is
can't get this installed, this will all become rather academic. But I can
install wine. Really it just seems like the system doesn't like the i386
foreign arch, for some reason.
> What (if anything) do you get from the following commands?
>
> $ apt-mark showhold
>
Nothing.
&
Yes, I did do the apt update, several times.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:13 PM Klaus Singvogel
wrote:
> You didn't respond to the Mailinglist...
>
> Did you do an "apt-get update" etc. (as explained later) after adding it?
>
> Yesterday, when I did it as written, everything worked fine at my side.
You didn't respond to the Mailinglist...
Did you do an "apt-get update" etc. (as explained later) after adding it?
Yesterday, when I did it as written, everything worked fine at my side.
Regards,
Klaus.
Dale Harris wrote:
> Yeah, I did that.
>
> I have
>
> deb
> https://download.opens
On 2020-04-23 at 15:18, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>> (It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian packages from an
>> OpenSUSE repository, but I have no specific reason to expect them to be
>> a problem.)
>
> I don't disagree.
FTR for the list'
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> (Is there a reason you replied off-list? This sort of thing is generally
> better handled in public, so that others can chime in if they have
> something to contribute.)
>
Sorry, user error.
(It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian pa
Hi,
you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at opensuse.org
https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian
For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this site.
https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192
Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at o
On 2020-04-23 at 13:11, Dale Harris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer
> wine5 version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
>
> # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading
Hi,
I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
# apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installe
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:04:16PM +0200, aprekates wrote:
> So some packages with other arch cant be installed so there is
> no need for dpkg to differentiate the name.
>
> But i can install binutils-common in my system from many archs
> so the suffix (thanks for the corre
So some packages with other arch cant be installed so there is
no need for dpkg to differentiate the name.
But i can install binutils-common in my system from many archs
so the suffix (thanks for the correction) helps to differentiate.
Thanks
Alexandros
On 18/11/19 12:53 μ.μ., Reco wrote
> GNU assembler, ..
>
> why dpkg -l adds the :arch prefix in some package names and not in others?
If a package has "Multiarch: same" flag (binutils-common is one of
these) it means it can be installed several times with the different
architectures.
dpkg shows such packages with
Looking at dpkg -l output i noticed:
ii binutils 2.31.1-16 amd64 GNU assembler, linker and
binary utilities
ii binutils-common:amd64 2.31.1-16 amd64 Common files for
the GNU assembler, ..
why dpkg -l adds the :arch prefix in some package names and not in others
I had a simular problem with a san disk 128 gb ssd but during a fresh
install of debian 9 on a dell E6230 laptop. Before the install the ssd was
wiped totally and overwritten several times including mbr. This leads me to
the conclusion that there is something hindering grub, maybe on a
controller c
On Sun 02 Apr 2017 at 01:56:22 +1300, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:13:26PM +, Brian wrote:
> > Apropos nothing. Columbus knew exactly where he was going and why. He
> > just didn't get there. The exact route he took didn't exist (or maybe
> > philosohically it
ating systems on this computer: Linux Mint,
> >>> Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. None of them had any problems detecting and
> >>> using my "Network Manager: Qualcomm Atheros 003e", and it shows up on
> >>> lspci, but when the Debian graphic installer attemp
On 04/01/2017 06:08 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:47:06AM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
On 03/14/2017 09:57 PM, Dean Valentine wrote:
I have installed three operating systems on this computer: Linux Mint,
Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. None of them had any problems
On Sun 02 Apr 2017 at 01:56:22 (+1300), cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:13:26PM +, Brian wrote:
> > Apropos nothing. Columbus knew exactly where he was going and why. He
> > just didn't get there. The exact route he took didn't exist (or maybe
> > philosohically i
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:13:26PM +, Brian wrote:
> Apropos nothing. Columbus knew exactly where he was going and why. He
> just didn't get there. The exact route he took didn't exist (or maybe
> philosohically it did but hadn't been travelled). But it was planned
> using the Google documentat
On Fri 17 Mar 2017 at 17:02:04 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 16 March 2017 20:08:16 Brian wrote:
> > and we are told
> > it is not the purpose of this list to answer practical problems by
> > by guiding people to it. :)
>
> Oh, come Brian. We are also told that it is not the purpose of
On Fri 17 Mar 2017 at 10:46:57 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 20:08:16 (+), Brian wrote:
> >
> > There was never had any reason to disagree with the analysis. The
> > queries starting this subthread
> >
> > > Is it just me, or are the "unofficial" images hard to get to?
On Thursday 16 March 2017 20:08:16 Brian wrote:
> and we are told
> it is not the purpose of this list to answer practical problems by
> by guiding people to it. :)
Oh, come Brian. We are also told that it is not the purpose of Debian to
pander to freaks and Geeks. We are told that the moon is
On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 20:08:16 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 12:04:14 -0500, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 14:05:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:52:00PM +, GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> > > > Brian:
> > > >
> > > > > Documentation
On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 12:04:14 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 14:05:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:52:00PM +, GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> > > Brian:
> > >
> > > > Documentation dispels ignorance. Dispelling ignorance requires the
> > > > co-ope
On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 14:05:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:52:00PM +, GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> > Brian:
> >
> > > Documentation dispels ignorance. Dispelling ignorance requires the
> > > co-operation of the user.
>
> :-)
>
> > To recapitulate, the purpose of the
David Wright wrote:
>But irrespective of that, it would be sensible to make it as easy to
>get from page A to http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/i386/iso-cd/
>without any right clicking or rubbing out, in the event that you get
>drawn down this path. Whether that's a small proportion of
On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 04:07:42 +, Dean Valentine wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 08:43 Pete Orrall wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dean Valentine
> > wrote:
> > > I don't have debian installed on my computer yet, nor can I access the
> > > internet with it (because my wifi i
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:33:22PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 15 Mar 2017 at 23:21:12 (-0400), Carl Fink wrote:
> > Not everyone has access to wired networks. I don't, to name just one
> > example of a person who does not. My last Debian install, I had to
> > use USB networking over my mob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:52:00PM +, GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> Brian:
>
> > Documentation dispels ignorance. Dispelling ignorance requires the
> > co-operation of the user.
:-)
> To recapitulate, the purpose of the list as I understand it is not to
Brian:
> Documentation dispels ignorance. Dispelling ignorance requires the
> co-operation of the user.
To a well educated ms-windows or apfel-widows to try out and see whether
they can live with debian, do you propose a couple of years of studying
before they even try a live version? When one 1
On Thu 16 Mar 2017 at 03:19:00 +, GiaThnYgeia wrote:
> Brian:
> > It is also just as easy to find
> > https://www.debian.org/CD/
> > and then
> > https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/
> > which leads to
> > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/i386/iso-cd/
>
> But he already mentioned
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 08:43 Pete Orrall wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dean Valentine
> wrote:
> > I don't have debian installed on my computer yet, nor can I access the
> > internet with it (because my wifi is down) so i don't understand how I
> would
> > install the non-free pack
On Wed 15 Mar 2017 at 23:21:12 (-0400), Carl Fink wrote:
> Not everyone has access to wired networks. I don't, to name just one
> example of a person who does not. My last Debian install, I had to
> use USB networking over my mobile phone to download non-free wifi
> chipset firmware.
That's neat.
:
> On 15 March 2017 at 06:57, Dean Valentine
mailto:deanvalent...@lhsla.org>> wrote:
>
> > I have installed three operating systems on this computer:
Linux Mint,
> > Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. None of them had any problems
detecting and using
>
Brian:
> It is also just as easy to find
> https://www.debian.org/CD/
> and then
> https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/
> which leads to
> http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/i386/iso-cd/
But he already mentioned this link
> without any right clicking or rubbing out.
> What rules are
+0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> On 15 March 2017 at 06:57, Dean Valentine
mailto:deanvalent...@lhsla.org>> wrote:
>
> > I have installed three operating systems on this computer:
Linux Mint,
> > Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. None of them had any problems
dete
1 - 100 of 349 matches
Mail list logo
