[...] (including up2date- their security update tool),
Hrm? Doesn't that require registration?
So, I would have to reccommend it highly, even though I know some people on t his list will have vociferous opinions against it! ;)
Yes, I'd recommend Mandrake ahead of it and would probably suggest looking at the "install once, upgrade forever" Debian. Has anyone tried demudi yet?
Hi
[...] (including up2date- their security update tool),
Hrm? Doesn't that require registration?
Think it does.
So, I would have to reccommend it highly, even though I know
some people on t
his list will have vociferous opinions against it! ;)
Yes, I'd recommend Mandrake ahead of it and would probably suggest looking at the "install once, upgrade forever" Debian. Has anyone tried demudi yet?
Haven't been back to mandrake since about 2 yrs ago, is it now 'the linux desktop of choice' ? As I've said b4 the Red Hat install was impeccable. Having played with it for a while now I love it but I still think Debian is the best - overall. Sure it takes more work but it is worth it in the end for sure. RPM is great, but you really can't beat apt. I just wish debian allowed you to build a kernel the proper way. $0.02 cheers
******************************************** Earl Brannigan, Linden House Software LTD, 82 High Street, Sawston, Cambridgeshire CB2 4HJ www.lindenhouse.co.uk Tel : 01223 834383 ********************************************
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Earl Brannigan wrote:
great, but you really can't beat apt. I just wish debian allowed you to build a kernel the proper way.
Erm, how does debian stop you from building a kernel in the "proper" way? anyhow make-kpkg does build "proper" kernels and installs them for you in the proper way, Redhat only recently got a nice system with the make rpm option which AFAICT does basically what the debian system does.
Adam
Hi adam
abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote :
great, but you really can't beat apt. I just wish debian allowed you to build a kernel the proper way.
Erm, how does debian stop you from building a kernel in the "proper" way? anyhow make-kpkg does build "proper" kernels and installs them for you in the proper way, Redhat only recently got a nice system with the make rpm option which AFAICT does basically what the debian system does.
Methinks you are deliberately mis-defining 'proper' and confusing the usage - a "proper" kernel is not the same as a kernel made in the "proper" way. ie. were the final kernel not 'proper' then it wouldn't be a kernel, if make-kpkg was the "proper" way to make a kernel then why don't other distros provide it? Since I got into Linux (about 1997) I've built many kernels, all of which were built using the good old reliable make - the same way available on all distros I've used (until Debian), thus the de-facto standard way (my definition of 'proper' in this context). This is not possible under Debian, you have to learn another way (make-kpkg). I'm not saying its wrong or bad but my experience was to install the kernel-source, and enjoy very strange errors when trying to make it under debian, then finding out that it didn't build in the proper way, I had to go get some info and try again with a not-proper (distro-specific) way. You can tell someone how to build a kernel in a single paragraph. Except you now need to add other paragraphs to cover the other ways in case their distro is an exception. Standards (especially de-facto) are a good thing. There should always be a choice between the Standard and any extensions which an individual distro may have added. Or have M$ won that argument now? Lets stuff the Standard, whether formal or de-facto if it doesn't fit our worldview. As I say - not knocking make-kpkg, its actually very good. But is it not possible to alter the install files to update the apt database when installing a kernel using make ? That way debian could install a "proper" kernel "properly" having made it in the "proper" way. ;o)
Cheers Earl
PS. written word does not convey tongue firmly planted in cheek, please bare this in mind prior to slamming me. Life's too short. :oP
******************************************** Earl Brannigan, Linden House Software LTD, 82 High Street, Sawston, Cambridgeshire CB2 4HJ www.lindenhouse.co.uk Tel : 01223 834383 ********************************************
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Earl Brannigan wrote:
Since I got into Linux (about 1997) I've built many kernels, all of which were built using the good old reliable make - the same way available on all distros I've used (until Debian), thus the de-facto standard way (my definition of 'proper' in this context). This is not possible under Debian, you have to learn another way (make-kpkg).
Erm, you can do it the old fashioned way, this is indeed what i did when i first used debian and never had any problems doing it. All make-kpkg does in reality is do the make modules, bzimage, etc for you. Then it packages the kernel and will update symlinks and make sure it is added to the bootloader etc. in the correct manner when you install it. In reality it is only a script to make sure you don't make mistakes (a good thing IMHO) like forgetting to run lilo or put the new modules in the correct place etc. the other nice thing is that when you want to upgrade to a newer major kernel version then Debian will sort it out for you and all the package dependancies.
Anyhow, i am not flaming, or even turning up the radiators, I just wondered what problems you have had with debian kernels. If anything Debian kernels are more pure than other kernels as they don't have lots of random patches applied as default (like Redhat) so they should work better out of the box and you can add the other bits you feel like.
Adam
at the "install once, upgrade forever" Debian. Has anyone tried demudi yet?
<my2p> I've tried demudi after reccomendations from miller puckette (ucsd), and successfully ran pd + lame + shoutcast, plus some neuro-fuzzy stuff like kohonen SOM's. Latency was minimal...beautiful. Only drawback is the amount of seemingly unnecessary packages , but whatever rocks your world. In all, though, debian + dsp is an awesome combination! </my2p>
David
david casal --0+ --- d.casal@uea.ac.uk --9+ --- www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/~dcasal --)+
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] (including up2date- their security update tool),
Hrm? Doesn't that require registration?
So, I would have to reccommend it highly, even though I know some people on t his list will have vociferous opinions against it! ;)
Yes, I'd recommend Mandrake ahead of it and would probably suggest looking
MJR
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
-
abower＠thebowery.co.uk -
David Plans Casal -
Earl Brannigan -
MJ Ray