On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> It's true that we're not "catering to your personal needs", but that's
> not really the issue. As I've explained before, what we need is people
> willing to show up and put in the effort, not just ask that other
> people do stuff for them.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Christopher Ross wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up; I have just joined the x86 list on your prompting.
Quite welcome! Welcome aboard!
> For my part I have a lovely, powerful, 64-bit desktop/gaming machine but my
> laptop is an old 32-bit Celeron M with 2G RAM. Th
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Robin Laing wrote:
> Myself have two i686 machines running. One will be disposed of in the next
> month or two. The second one is great for emergencies and as a travel
> (where stupid spy/scan laws prevail) throw away computer.
>
> If support is dropped, the seco
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Eddie O'Connor wrote:
> While I myself don't have any x86 hardware, I know many people whom I've
> introduced to Linux that are running it on their x86 machines. SO yes, this
> architecture should still be supported, (at least until say...'20?...a nice
> round figu
On 09/03/2017 11:33 AM, JD wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/2017 12:21 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 12:05:11PM -0600, JD wrote:
>>> On URL https://getfedora.org/en/server/download/
>>> the iso size is 2.2 GB,
>>> and on URL
>>> http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/26/Server/x86_
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:14:33AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> running Fedora, but I am now looking for alternative distros because
> Fedora's leadership apparently is not willing to cater my personal
> needs.
It's true that we're not "catering to your personal needs", but that's
not really the
On 04/09/17 04:07, Robin Laing wrote:
On 03/09/17 09:53, Jeff Backus wrote:
As you may or may not be aware, there is an active discussion on the
development side as to whether or not we continue to support the x86
architecture.
...
Is x86 support still important to you? If so, then come join
On 09/05/2017 04:56 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 01:48 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 01:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>> Updates, at least through Gnome Software, are now done offline. The
>>> packages are
>>> all downloaded and prepared ahead of time and then the system is rebooted
On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 01:48 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 01:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > Updates, at least through Gnome Software, are now done offline. The
> > packages are all downloaded and prepared ahead of time and then the
> > system is rebooted into the update mode to install t
On 09/05/2017 01:48 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 09/05/2017 01:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Updates, at least through Gnome Software, are now done offline. The
packages are all downloaded and prepared ahead of time and then the
system is rebooted into the update mode to install them.
For me, at least
On 09/05/2017 01:32 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Updates, at least through Gnome Software, are now done offline. The
packages are all downloaded and prepared ahead of time and then the
system is rebooted into the update mode to install them.
For me, at least, that's another reason I'm glad I don't
On Sep 5 08:45, Andras Simon wrote:
> 2017-09-05 5:14 GMT+02:00, Ralf Corsepius :
> > On 09/04/2017 07:18 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
> >> 2017-09-04 18:36 GMT+02:00, Ralf Corsepius :
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I'd recommend Fedora/RH to drop all other "secondary" archs,
> >>> because they do n
On 09/04/2017 03:00 PM, stan wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:48:00 -0400
Matt Morgan wrote:
The last time I signed off of Fedora 25, I opted to install updates.
I don't understand this. Updating the system requires that it be
running, in order to download the packages, and install them. Is th
13 matches
Mail list logo
