Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

That's the beauty of Debian. If the dev doesn't backport a fix, the maintainer might. It's not uncommon. On Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 22:38 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > One additional data point to consider... there are folks who have > exploits written for vulnerabilities that the community does not know >

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:09:35AM +0800, Jeff Peng wrote: > Hello, > > I am running a small mailserver with debian 11 for many years. It's quite > solid. > Though I have read this article: > https://www.cherryservers.com/blog/debian-12-bookworm-release > do you think there is any need for me to u

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:08 AM Richard wrote: > > The question with Linux isn't if there's a need to update to the latest > version (of the distro) like on Windows, but rather what's keeping you from > updating? If there's no urgent reason to stick to 11, update. 11 is now > oldstable and wil

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

that's nice to know. thanks for all your help. about dovecot: if you have dovecot installed from the dovecot repository, then be aware that dovecot does not (yet) provide a version for bookworm. if you have dovecot installed from the debian repository, then you should be fine. about debian:

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

The question with Linux isn't if there's a need to update to the latest version (of the distro) like on Windows, but rather what's keeping you from updating? If there's no urgent reason to stick to 11, update. 11 is now oldstable and will become oldoldstable mid next year. Thus, it currently become

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

On Thursday, June 20, 2024 5:09:35 AM CEST, Jeff Peng wrote: I am running a small mailserver with debian 11 for many years. It's quite solid. Though I have read this article: https://www.cherryservers.com/blog/debian-12-bookworm-release do you think there is any need for me to upgrade from 11 to

Re: suggestion of upgrade to 12

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:09:35 +0800, Jeff Peng wrote: > I am running a small mailserver with debian 11 for many years. It's quite > solid. > Though I have read this article: > https://www.cherryservers.com/blog/debian-12-bookworm-release > do you think there is any need for me to upgrade from 11

Re: zfs data partition, crypt loop mounts and newbie tutorials -- was Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on separate partition

On 2020-07-09 02:28, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Since I have to re-send this anyway, my current laptop setup for some time is this: - there is one internal drive, ~750 MiB - Root partition, ~30 GiB, Debian default Ext4 - (there's also a default sized EFI partition, may be ~1GiB from memory)

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Jo, 09 iul 20, 11:02:49, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > > Sounds pretty risky. > > > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > > going to use it to adjust partitions when required? > >

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thu 09 Jul 2020 at 11:02:49 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > > Sounds pretty risky. > > > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > > going to use it to adjust partitions when re

zfs data partition, crypt loop mounts and newbie tutorials -- was Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on separate partition

- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness - From: Zenaan Harkness To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:00:06 +1000 Subject: Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 08 iul 20,

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > > Sounds pretty risky. > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > going to use it to adjust partitions when required? You first have to copy stuff, then delete stuff, then shrink, then move

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Mi, 08 iul 20, 10:20:45, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:35:35AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its > > flexibility in adjusting your partitions. > > But it won't make disappear a separate /usr p

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 18:07:05 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 8/7/20 3:35 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > >> On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > >>> > >>> The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this > >>> on

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:07:05PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote: A line for /usr is in /etc/fstab using it's UUID ... same as root is referenced by UUID (both are in the same lvm2 volume group). Why not just reference it by path?

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:35:35AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its > flexibility in adjusting your partitions. But it won't make disappear a separate /usr partition "by magic". > What prevents you from merging '/' and '/usr

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 8/7/20 3:35 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: >>> >>> The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this >>> on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous >>> amo

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this > > on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous > > amount of effort required to make > > something

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 02:35:09 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > >> On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > >>> On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > >>>

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

Hi, On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: >> On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: >>> On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: >>> > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: >>> >> On Friday 31 Octobe

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > [...] > >>> I

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. B

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > [...] > >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is >>> essential. >> >> This is what the install gave me. I hav

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

On 2020-05-14 12:22, Yvan Masson wrote: Le 13/05/2020 à 02:30, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-12 08:04, Yvan Masson wrote: Le 12/05/2020 à 03:37, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: What is the model/ part number of your computer? It is an Acer Asp

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

Le 14/05/2020 à 21:22, Yvan Masson a écrit : Le 13/05/2020 à 02:30, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-12 08:04, Yvan Masson wrote: Le 12/05/2020 à 03:37, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: Was the memory in your computer installed by Acer? I believe so

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

Le 13/05/2020 à 02:30, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-12 08:04, Yvan Masson wrote: Le 12/05/2020 à 03:37, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: Was the memory in your computer installed by Acer? I believe so. Okay. Have you removed or inserted any

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

On 2020-05-12 08:04, Yvan Masson wrote: Le 12/05/2020 à 03:37, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: Was the memory in your computer installed by Acer? I believe so. Okay. Have you removed or inserted any memory modules? Not before the issue arose. Okay.

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

Le 12/05/2020 à 03:37, David Christensen a écrit : On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: Hi, I installed Debian 10 on a Acer AspireOne (32 bits processor, 1GB RAM). Installation failed two times with corrupted packages, each time on same package (tcllib). I finally manage to re-download and

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

On 2020-05-11 10:28, Yvan Masson wrote: Hi, I installed Debian 10 on a Acer AspireOne (32 bits processor, 1GB RAM). Installation failed two times with corrupted packages, each time on same package (tcllib). I finally manage to re-download and install it by hand in another TTY so that the insta

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

I do not know well the subject but RAM problems can be a nightmare and I suppose yours could be -for example- caused by a particular area of the RAM that does not systematically fail under workload (transiant fault) and thus is not detected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_tester

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

Le 11/05/2020 à 20:03, didier gaumet a écrit : Hello, perhaps try to install in text mode and lowmem: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch05s03.en.html perhaps you have a RAM problem in a particular area that is not reported by the RAM verifying tool you used. If the installation s

Re: Suggestion on hardware issue?

Hello, perhaps try to install in text mode and lowmem: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch05s03.en.html perhaps you have a RAM problem in a particular area that is not reported by the RAM verifying tool you used. If the installation succeeds, it could mean you have to replace the RA

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

* David Baron [2014-11-02 00:28 +0200]: > On Saturday 01 November 2014 22:58:05 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Saturday 01 November 2014 22:58:05 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > > On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > [...] > > > > It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is > > > essential. > > > > This is what the insta

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

* David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] > > It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is > > essential. > > This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. > Where do I tell it to mount /usr? No ne

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-10-31 10:22 +0200]: > > On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > [...] > > > > To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. > > > > > > Therefor you need at least > > > >

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

* David Baron [2014-10-31 10:22 +0200]: > On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] > > To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. > > > > Therefor you need at least > > > > ii initramfs-tools 0.118 > > ii util-linux 2.25.2-2 > > > > which

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * Hans [2014-10-30 10:27 +0100]: > > Dear maintainers, > > > > completely without starting any flamewars: > > > > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well > > as /var, /home, /boot and /. > > > >

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:30:54 +0100 Peter Nieman wrote: > On 30/10/14 17:48, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > > Hum... I think I always have seen the installer on "all in one > > partition (beginners)"? > > If you have selected this one, then, you should not have problems > > because of stuf

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

* Hans [2014-10-30 10:27 +0100]: > Dear maintainers, > > completely without starting any flamewars: > > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as > /var, /home, /boot and /. > > Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. > > Due to this profil

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 30/10/14 17:48, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Hum... I think I always have seen the installer on "all in one partition (beginners)"? If you have selected this one, then, you should not have problems because of stuff not mounted. I guess you're right that there was an option to have ev

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

Le 30.10.2014 15:35, Peter Nieman a écrit : On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 10/30/2014 10:14 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. If you want this to work, yo

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thursday 30 October 2014 15:35:53 Peter Nieman wrote: > On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: > > I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable > > keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing > > multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate par

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like t

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as > well as /var, /home, /boot and /. > > Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. If you want this to work, you need to ensure that /usr is mounted by th

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

Le Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:27:50 +0100, Hans a écrit : > Dear maintainers, > > completely without starting any flamewars: > > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as > well as /var, /home, /boot and /. > > Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. > > D

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 10/30/14, Hans wrote: > >> I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable >> keeping >> of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian >> installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even >> recent installations (not that I lik

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

> I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping > of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian > installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even > recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the >

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

> Hi Hans, > have a look on this link: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ > > Best, > Alex Yes, yes, I know that. I alreadfy filed a bugreport some weeks ago. However, it is not really a bug, but more a "failure by design", I think. Hope, that the ma

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thursday 30 October 2014 10:27:50 Hans wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > completely without starting any flamewars: > > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well > as /var, /home, /boot and /. > > Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. > > Due to

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On 10/30/2014 10:27 AM, Hans wrote: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of an

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > completely without starting any flamewars: > > I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as > /var, /home, /boot and /. > > Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. > >

Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition

Hello Hans! Am Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014, 10:27:50 schrieb Hans: > Dear maintainers, You only reach the systemd maintainers by pure luck this way. I know one is subscribed to debian-user-german, I am not sure about debian-user. I suggest you use BTS or dig for a debian systemd maintainers ma

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:08:36 +0100, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: >> Mmm, and why not center the attention in the application which is not >> acting as it should? If something is wrong at powerdevil's side it >> should be corrected/fixed/solved/debugged there. >> > > Hi Camaleon, > > the point is: pow

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

> Mmm, and why not center the attention in the application which is not > acting as it should? If something is wrong at powerdevil's side it should > be corrected/fixed/solved/debugged there. > > Greetings, Hi Camaleon, the point is: powerdevil got this function earlier, but the developers som

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:36:58 +0100, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > As powerdevil changed last year, I found no way, to force the cpu to > stay at lowest clock, even when a process wants full speed. > > My solution at the moment is, to use cpufreq-set, where I can set the > cpu to lowest frequency. > >

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

On 15/01/12 21:48, Ralf Madorf wrote: PolicyKit It would help if you could give a little more insightpointers on how to do it? ;) Lorenzo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archiv

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

PolicyKit -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1326664115.1178.189.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: Suggestion: Please change rights of cpufreq-set by default

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Dear list, > please let me describe a little problem. > > As powerdevil changed last year, I found no way, to force the cpu to stay at > lowest clock, even when a process wants full speed. > > My solution at the moment is, to use

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

I don't see any nokia phones, but over on XDAdevelopers they have plenty of success with Linux kernels supporting a wide variety of smartphone devices. -- Patrick Ouellette p...@flying-gecko.net ne4po (at) arrl (dot) net Amateur Radio: NE4PO What kind of change have y

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

green wrote at 2011-03-30 11:11 -0500: > a non-mainline kernel will be eventually left behind by mainline development. And the device too. Here is a HOWTO I have considered following for running Debian using Nokia's kernel for the N810: http://www.natisbad.org/N810/index.html But some extra use

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

Christian Jaeger wrote at 2011-03-29 13:10 -0500: > 2011/3/15 green : > > I purchased the N810 hoping naively that I could run mainline Linux on it > > eventually.  It does not and probably never will.  The N900, if that page I > > linked is correct, does not; it might never. > > I'd be ok using n

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

2011/3/15 green : > I purchased the N810 hoping naively that I could run mainline Linux on it > eventually.  It does not and probably never will.  The N900, if that page I > linked is correct, does not; it might never. Which page? https://elektranox.org/n900/status/kernel.html only specifies what'

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

Brad Alexander wrote at 2011-03-15 04:03 -0500: > I guess that depends on your definition. Absolutely. > if your metric is being able to > compile your own kernel on the device, then no, it is not "native." My > understanding from the OP's question was native Linux being defined as > "running Lin

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:24:28PM -0700, johhny_at_poland77 wrote: >not android! [cut] >important: i would only use the phone for surfing the net. >thanks for any help regarding these questions. If you only need it for surfing the net, surely you don't need a phone? Have you looked a

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:10 PM, green wrote: > Brad Alexander wrote at 2011-03-14 18:02 -0500: > > The N900 is indeed a native Linux phone. Maemo is based on Debian, and in > > addition there is a Debian chroot, which uses the Debian repos. > > N900, native Linux? Like, mainline Linux? Compil

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

Hello johhny_at_poland77, Am 2011-03-14 15:24:28, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > not android! :-D > Debian, Fedora, or anything (natively = not in chroot) > I'm not sure, but the Nokia N900 can run Debian > http://openattitude.com/2010/03/19/easy-and-amazing-debian-for-the-n900/ > I just need

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

Well Viruses and Vulnerabilities aren't exactly one and the same. Most of the Vulnerabilities mentioned have weaknesses in the applications or pure stupidity of the users. Something I regularly gripe about, Leave stupid people on their own platform, don't dilute mine. TeddyB -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

On 03/15/2011 01:38 AM, shawn wilson wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Doug > wrote: On 03/14/2011 06:24 PM, johhny_at_poland77 wrote: or android is a good solution? can i run chrome on it? is it a "safe" distro? I don't know for sure,

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Doug wrote: > On 03/14/2011 06:24 PM, johhny_at_poland77 wrote: > > or android is a good solution? can i run chrome on it? is it a "safe" > distro? > > I don't know for sure, but since Chrome and Android are products of Google, > it would really be surprising if

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

Brad Alexander wrote at 2011-03-14 18:02 -0500: > The N900 is indeed a native Linux phone. Maemo is based on Debian, and in > addition there is a Debian chroot, which uses the Debian repos. N900, native Linux? Like, mainline Linux? Compile-my-own-kernel Linux? No. https://elektranox.org/n900/st

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

The N900 is indeed a native Linux phone. Maemo is based on Debian, and in addition there is a Debian chroot, which uses the Debian repos. The N900 (I have one and an N810) is a really rock-solid platform, though I am not terribly enamored with Nokia. Maemo and the Nseries could have ruled the mobi

Re: Suggestion for a smartphone running natively LINUX? :)

On 03/14/2011 06:24 PM, johhny_at_poland77 wrote: not android! Debian, Fedora, or anything (natively = not in chroot) I'm not sure, but the Nokia N900 can run Debian http://openattitude.com/2010/03/19/easy-and-amazing-debian-for-the-n900/ /snip/ or android is a good solution? can i run chrom

Re: Suggestion for buying/repairing print

On 10/31/2010 05:34 AM, Lisi wrote: On Wednesday 20 October 2010 12:13:15 Rodolfo Medina wrote: Rodolfo Medina writes: However, I have now another problem: after cleaning the heads, the print quality remains bad. They told me it may depend on the heads dried or maybe broken. In any case, the

Re: Suggestion for buying/repairing print (was: "Chicken-egg" printer problem)

On Wednesday 20 October 2010 12:13:15 Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Rodolfo Medina writes: > >> However, I have now another problem: after cleaning the heads, the print > >> quality remains bad. They told me it may depend on the heads dried or > >> maybe broken. In any case, they told that the printer

Re: Suggestion for buying/repairing print (was: "Chicken-egg" printer problem)

Rodolfo Medina writes: >> However, I have now another problem: after cleaning the heads, the print >> quality remains bad. They told me it may depend on the heads dried or maybe >> broken. In any case, they told that the printer needs being taken to an >> assistence centre. >> >> Any suggestion

Re: Suggestion/Question for the approx apt(itutde) proxy daemon

On 20100505_184737, Rick Thomas wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I just started using approx. I'm really impressed. It's a great > piece of work. Thanks! > > Here's a question: Is it permissible/possible to have two (or more) > different mirrors listed as servers for the same set of archives? > > for e

Re: Suggestion for a mail package

> We are planning to run an email server at my university. We would like > to use something that has a nice Web based gui for its configuration. > Does anyone have any good ideas? We have tried courier and exim, but > their web-based GUIs were not that good. Any other email packages out > there we

Re: Suggestion for a mail package

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:55:27 -0600, ghe in gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: > Mag Gam wrote: > >> We are planning to run an email server at my university. We would like >> to use something that has a nice Web based gui for its configuration. >> Does anyone have any good ideas? We have tried courier a

Re: Suggestion for a mail package

Mag Gam wrote: > We are planning to run an email server at my university. We would like > to use something that has a nice Web based gui for its configuration. > Does anyone have any good ideas? We have tried courier and exim, but > their web-based GUIs were not that good. Any other email packages

Re: Suggestion about file permissions being listed in debian packages

On Thursday 01 January 2009, grok wrote about 'Suggestion about file permissions being listed in debian packages': >A lot of issues with users come about because of incorrect >file/dir permissions (for whatever reasons. Make no >assumptions, please. There's a good reason why Ubuntu now >exists).

Re: Suggestion for offtopic-list

Andrei Popescu wrote: I see a significant percent of the traffic on this list being due to off-topic threads. And some contributors are complaining about the unnecessary traffic. Why not simply create a debian-offtopic list? I suggest the following scheme: - create off-topic list. - move all

Re: Suggestion for offtopic-list

Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > Why not simply create a debian-offtopic list? > > I don't see that much off-topic discussion here (IMHO, anything related to > Debian user experience is on-topic here and that's pretty wide topic), but > the problem of all off-topi

Re: Suggestion for offtopic-list

Andrei Popescu wrote: > Why not simply create a debian-offtopic list? I don't see that much off-topic discussion here (IMHO, anything related to Debian user experience is on-topic here and that's pretty wide topic), but the problem of all off-topic lists is that people who don't care enough to not

Re: Suggestion for offtopic-list

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:04:09 +0300 Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not simply create a debian-offtopic list? Why not join the fray at the Mandrake (Mandriva) Off topic list) we need some new victims ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H list members The signup address is at http://mandrakeot.mdw1982

Re: Suggestion for offtopic-list

Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello everybody, > > Sorry if it has been discused before, but ... > > I see a significant percent of the traffic on this list being due to > off-topic threads. And some contributors are complaining about the > unnecessary traffic. > > Why not simply cr

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Users, I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install Sarge on to that machine for internet browsing and word processing. I would like your

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Users, I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB [snip] I wonder how this ever came out. Did you find a version which fit your memory needs? Mike -- p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

On Sunday 12 March 2006 21:36, Mike McCarty wrote: > Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > Dear Users, > > I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory > > system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 > > MB VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install Sarge on to that >

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kent West wrote: dillo is a light-weight browser, but I don't believe it has support for Java, Flash, etc (but you'd really need more RAM for that anyway). I don't think dillo even has support for frames. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

I don't think of 56 MB as a low memory system - although I do think of KDE, GNOME, netscape etc as high overhead, resource hungry pieces of software. I have several systems for which 64MB is the *maximum* memory expansion, with 32MB being the standard. I have some old 68k based systems that work j

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Users, I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install Sarge on to that machine for internet browsing and word processing. I would like your

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Users, I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory system. Easy; get more RAM. (I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, but for what you want to do, you really need more RAM.) The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB VRAM, I he

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 12:43 +1100, Star King of the Grape Trees wrote: > Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > >Dear Users, > >I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory > >system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB > >VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Dear Users, > I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory > system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB > VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install Sarge on to that machine > for internet browsing and word processing. I would l

Re: Suggestion for a low memory system

Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Users, I would like your suggestion of a Sarge install on a low memory system. The system actually has a 750 Mhz P-III, and 56 MB RAM (+ 8 MB VRAM, I hear). Now, I would like to install Sarge on to that machine for internet browsing and word processing. I would like you

[Fwd: Re: Suggestion]

Dear Genius customer, We will forward this information to our RD and PM department. Right now we focus on Windows and Mac system first and if people do need Linux driver, we will consider to develop that soon. Respectfully yours, Customer Service Dept. FAQ : http://www.geniusnet.com.tw/support/faq_

Re: Suggestion: Media Check for ISO Images

on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:37:27PM +1100, Enoch Ko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > To: Debian Developers/ISO Image Maintainers > > I downloaded Debian GNU/Linux 3.0R2 i386 from mirror sites and the MD5SUMS > check was correct for the images. However, when attempted an install of > the system, some

Re: Suggestion for Common Third Party Install system

On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 00:53, Nicos Gollan wrote: > This sounds awfully like an extended version of stow. It'd be nice to see > that. Hmm, having looked up stow, I see what you mean. The only thing is that stow, as far as I can tell, tries to do it for everything, which apt/dpkg already does bett

  1   2   3   >