Hi Mathew,
You need to go for i386 release as this means Intel and AMD processors.
As you stated to have an XP it is not 64 bit.
However if you didn't know this it might be time for a bit more reading
and exploring your computer. Otherwise I'm not hopeful the installation
will succeed.
Good luck
Quoting Mathew Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I am a bit puzzled about the supported architechtures for Debian, and
which one that I should get!
I have a GigaByte GA-7VA-A with an Athlon Xp Processor. Can anyone help???
Personally, I would recommend Sarge (for i386, naturally). However,
you
Mario Vukelic, Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 01:20:42AM +0200:
> I'v run stable, testing and unstable. In you case, I would start with
> stable. Most software in Linux is so mature these days that it doesn't
> really matter if it's all that recent for the most part. Desktop
> environments (Gnome, KDE) are
on Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:33:32AM -0700, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:46:31 +0200
> "Stefan Waidele jun." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But with debian-unstable the chance of 'getting the workstation hosed'
> > during and 'apt-get upgrade' is greater than with d
Mario Vukelic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06 Sep 2003 14:09 +0200]:
>
> Very good advice, I'd only add to read debian-devel list before
> upgrading packages.
The topic of #debian-devel on irc.freenode.net is a good place to check
for unstable upgrade warnings and is much easier to scan than -devel.
Geo
On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 13:33, Steve Lamb wrote:
> So don't do an apt-get upgrade. First install apt-listchanges and
> apt-listbugs. [..]
Very good advice, I'd only add to read debian-devel list before
upgrading packages. Still, it's a lot of work to do. I ran testing and
unstable at some poi
On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 13:41, Colin Watson wrote:
> The procedures are in place: there's testing-proposed-updates, which can
> be used to get critical security fixes autobuilt and into testing. The
> manpower to make use of this is what's lacking.
Ah, good. Still, to the user of testing it makes n
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 12:14:51PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 05:02, Russell Shaw wrote:
> > If you use a lighter wm such as icewm, then there's no problem at all
> > with testing. I'd recommend that because there's less changing and less
> > chance of system breaks as with
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 12:26:16PM +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> I meant: it's not so much the /upstream/ packages that are unstable, as
> only apps that are considered stable by upstream go into unstable.
Only packages that are considered by the Debian maintainer go
into unstable. It's entirely
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:46:31 +0200
"Stefan Waidele jun." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But with debian-unstable the chance of 'getting the workstation hosed'
> during and 'apt-get upgrade' is greater than with debian-testing, isn't it?
So don't do an apt-get upgrade. First install apt-listcha
Mario Vukelic wrote:
On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 08:35, Stefan Waidele jun. wrote:
Mario Vukelic wrote:
[...]
Avoid testing!! Testing is for testing /the distribution/ and is quite
fd most of the time, as packages trickle in from unstable in a quite
random manner.
[...]
Unstable is ok, it's not so
On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 08:35, Stefan Waidele jun. wrote:
> Mario Vukelic wrote:
> > [...]
> > Avoid testing!! Testing is for testing /the distribution/ and is quite
> > fd most of the time, as packages trickle in from unstable in a quite
> > random manner.
> > [...]
> > Unstable is ok, it's not
On Sam, 2003-09-06 at 05:02, Russell Shaw wrote:
> If you use a lighter wm such as icewm, then there's no problem at all
> with testing. I'd recommend that because there's less changing and less
> chance of system breaks as with unstable. You can install single packages
> from unstable easily too.
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:35:03AM +0200, Stefan Waidele jun. wrote:
> That is just contrary from what I have read from various sources.
> So let's turn to _the_ source:
>
> http://www.debian.de/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives#s-testing
> and
> http://www.debian.de/releases/
>
> '[...] we hope that `testi
on Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:34:37PM -0400, David Z Maze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Joey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I am installing Debian on a Internet-capable computer for
> > experimentation and a way to continue learning about Linux without
> > the limitations of a live CD. Sho
Mario Vukelic wrote:
[...]
Avoid testing!! Testing is for testing /the distribution/ and is quite
fd most of the time, as packages trickle in from unstable in a quite
random manner.
[...]
Unstable is ok, it's not so much the packages that are unstable, but the
package list changes frequently.
Mario Vukelic wrote:
On Fre, 2003-09-05 at 19:53, Joey Harrison wrote:
My
preference would be to have the most recent packages,
but also somewhat tested, so should I use testing?
I'v run stable, testing and unstable. In you case, I would start with
stable. Most software in Linux is so mature th
On Fre, 2003-09-05 at 19:53, Joey Harrison wrote:
> My
> preference would be to have the most recent packages,
> but also somewhat tested, so should I use testing?
I'v run stable, testing and unstable. In you case, I would start with
stable. Most software in Linux is so mature these days that it
Joey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am installing Debian on a Internet-capable computer for
> experimentation and a way to continue learning about Linux without
> the limitations of a live CD. Should I use stable, testing, or
> unstable? My preference would be to have the most recent pa
I personally use Unstable. Don't be afraid of the name--"unstable"
refers to the package list itself, in that it changes frequently with
the addition and removal of packages. The software itself is stable, for
the most part. I have only had a few problems in the year or so I've
been using Unsta
20 matches
Mail list logo
