cheezy-eazy on Debian.
>
> --JATF
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
>
>
> On 2004-04-12,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
> > One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by
> > reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably
> > the Debian Developer documents is where I *s
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of
> debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
> anger and frustration that this distribution has
> caused.
>
> I want to start with saying that i was a strong
>
Colin Watson declaimed:
>_ _ _ _
> | ___(_)_ __ (_)___| |__
> | |_ | | '_ \| / __| '_ \
> | _| | | | | | \__ \ | | |
> |_| |_|_| |_|_|___/_| |_|
>
>_ _
> |_ _| |__ ___
> | | | '_ \ / _ \
> | | | | | | __/
> |_| |_| |_|\___|
>
>___
ptionally
problematic on other distros, but were cheezy-eazy on Debian.
--JATF
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Monique Y. Mudama
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On 2004-04-12, Adam Au
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:47:59PM -0400, Chris Metzler wrote:
> So I would guess that there's some set of target properties that
> testing should have before it gets frozen that gets decided upon,
> e.g. "the next release must include a 2.4 kernel by default with a
> 2.6 kernel optional, the new i
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
> This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather
> than "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest
> releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't
> renamed to something else
Kevin Ruml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable"
> rather than "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros
> latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable"
> isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigm
Trollcollect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of debians woody
> release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this
> distribution has caused.
That's nice. Submit patch or piss off.
> overall totally outdated and useless versions of l
On 2004-04-13, dircha penned:
>
> Something else it occurs to me be useful is an automated way to
> consider for install/upgrade only unstable packages which have been in
> the repository for 2 days. Most of my problems have been cases where I
> have happened to have upgraded before the severe erro
Kevin Ruml wrote:
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than
"stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't renamed to something
else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not nece
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
> One thing that I've never understood, and haven't figured out by
> reading the Debian Reference or by osmosis from posts here (probably
> the Debian Developer documents is where I *should* look) is how the
> "goals" for a release are determined and commu
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:04:33 -0400
"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about shortening the release cycle so that "stable" is more
> up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-).
>
> (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why
On 2004-04-12, Adam Aube penned:
> Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
>> Well, "more unstable than the stable distribution" takes a lot longer
>> to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P
>
> What about "current", then?
>
This would encourage people to use the unstable distribution, which by
defini
On 2004-04-12, Kevin Ruml penned:
> This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather
> than "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest
> releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't
> renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned:
>
> Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004
> 14:57:40 -0600) "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> didst
> appear within my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly
> supplicatory, did polemicize thusly:
>
>> On the third
Better yet, use Knoppix. Or wait a couple days for
the new one.
http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-old-en.html
Easiest and best Debian available.
You're right, though. It's like M$ trying to push 3.1
because it's so old all the bugs have finally been
worked out, and it's so "stable"... Many p
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:04:33PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
> | This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than
> | "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
> | com
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> Well, "more unstable than the stable distribution" takes a lot longer to
> type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P
What about "current", then?
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:57:40
-0600) "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> didst appear within
my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory,
did polemicize thusly:
> On the third hand,
Since the 1993 printing of Larry Niven and
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
| This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than
| "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
| comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't renamed to something
| e
This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than
"stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't renamed to something
else to dispel the stigma the name gives? Not necessarily "desktop",
Trollcollect wrote:
Hello list,
However as i have to install a small network now (7
WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this
assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to
get an installation CD with the new jigdo method).
What i got after installation was
- a 2.2 Kernel without ext
Pigeon wrote:
> enter "bf24" at the "boot:" prompt from the installation CD to get a
> 2.4.18 kernel with ext3 support
> or
> upgrade your kernel once you've installed it
Good advice.
> > - a KDE 2.0
>
> add to /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> deb http://download.kde.org/stable/3.2.1/Debian stable mai
On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned:
>
> Well said, as was the rest of your post.
Thank you =)
> I would just like to add (since no one else has(which I can barely
> believe)) that the 'unstable' version is decidedly /stable/ for
> desktop/workstation use. I (no Linux guru) have had uptimes o
If you want more current packages, you might consider upgrading to testing
or even unstable. especially in unstable, things sometimes do break, but
you could take a look and see if more of what you want is in one of these
distributions and decide whether you want to upgrade your whole system or
jus
Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:11:55
-0600) "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> didst appear within
my Magick Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory,
did polemicize thusly:
> Now, as I'm sure you know, Woody is the current stable incarna
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:54:23PM +0200, Trollcollect wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of
> debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
> anger and frustration that this distribution has
> caused.
>
> I want to start with saying that i was a strong
>
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Trollcollect wrote:
> I want to start with saying that i was a strong
> advocate of debian compared to distributions such as
> RedHat and SuSE.
Please don't advocate things you don't understand. You are doing neither
yourself or the people you are trying to give advice to.
On 2004-04-12, Trollcollect penned:
> Hello list,
>
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of debians woody
> release i need to vent a bit of the anger and frustration that this
> distribution has caused.
Now, now; take a deep breath, count to ten, and read the rest of this
post before b
I suggest you install sarge and immediately thereafter install kernel 2.6.5
"Trollcollect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello list,
>
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of
> debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
> anger and frustration that
High,
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] Trollcollect wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> However as i have to install a small network now (7
> WS's and one server), i have to reconsider this
> assessment. I downloaded woody (2 failed attempts to
> get an installation CD with the new jigdo method).
> What i
On April 12, 2004 10:54 am, Trollcollect wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> after 3 days of twiddling with a "recent" copy of
> debians woody release i need to vent a bit of the
> anger and frustration that this distribution has
> caused.
>
> I want to start with saying that i was a strong
> advocate of debi
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 the mental interface of
Trollcollect told:
> Hello list,
>
[...]
> I then tried to figure out how to update those
> packages i need in recent versions. As i know KDE from
> Solaris, i trust enough in their own QA procedure to
> consider their 3.2.1 stable enough for usage. Why
34 matches
Mail list logo
