Jenny_Hopkins wrote: Re. the Welcome to Linux sessions: http://linuxclub.il.eu.org/newcomers/timetable.html I wonder how many would turn up to the lectures? - it would be quite a lot of work and preparation if no-one were to show up. Wouldn't it basically mean just making the meetings more organised - we already have the
meeting,
the website advertising them, and informal talks.
I think the lectures are a fantastic idea and I would definitely attend (as a relative newcomer to Linux I love the idea of having a time table of dedicated lectures where introductory Linux concepts and practices can be discussed and demonstrated; from my point of view this is far preferable to informal talks)
I would be very happy to help with the meeting preparations.
David
D Rothe wrote on Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:35 PM
Jenny_Hopkins wrote: Re. the Welcome to Linux sessions: http://linuxclub.il.eu.org/newcomers/timetable.html I wonder how many would turn up to the lectures? - it would
be quite a lot
of work and preparation if no-one were to show up.
Wouldn't it basically
mean just making the meetings more organised - we already have the
meeting,
the website advertising them, and informal talks.
I think the lectures are a fantastic idea and I would definitely attend (as a relative newcomer to Linux I love the idea of having a time table of dedicated lectures where introductory Linux concepts and practices can be discussed and demonstrated; from my point of view this is far preferable to informal talks)
I would be very happy to help with the meeting preparations.
David
I too think this is a good idea, but it won't happen unless we make it happen.
So, 1st of all who, where and when?
Who would be prepared give a presentation/talk/etc about some aspect of using GNU/Linux?
When is a good time to do this? Evenings? Weekends? Next year, this year, January, February, etc?
Where would be a good venue? Should we use several different venues or the same one for all?
If we're going to do this then the wiki web pages is probably a good place to build up some lists of people/topics/ venues.
We need to avoid re-inventing the wheel so we should find out who else has done this sort of thing (as per the URL supplied) and see if we can get material and advice from them.
Keith ____________ If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. William Blake
I too think this is a good idea, but it won't happen unless we make it
happen.
So, 1st of all who, where and when?
Who would be prepared give a presentation/talk/etc about some aspect of
using GNU/Linux?
Someone with more knowledge than I :)
When is a good time to do this? Evenings? Weekends? Next year, this year,
January, February, etc?
Where would be a good venue? Should we use several different venues or
the same one for all?
Good point, do you keep the monthly meet as a social, then alternative weekends/evenings as lecture days? From such an arrangement there is a greater level of commitment which may or may not effect turn out???
If we're going to do this then the wiki web pages is probably a good place
to build up some lists of people/topics/ venues.
We need to avoid re-inventing the wheel so we should find out who else has
done this sort of thing (as per the URL supplied) and see if we can get material and advice from them.
Indeed, as noted in another email, would be good to initially run a core foundation lecture i.e. what is Linux, how Linux is used, basic commands, overview of functionality ... much like the lectures Jenny attached. Perhaps talk to other LUG's who may have such lectures already?
I am sure that we can all add something to make this successful and virtually cost free :)
Take Care,
J
Keith Watson Keith.Watson@Kewill.com wrote:
Who would be prepared give a presentation/talk/etc about some aspect of using GNU/Linux?
I would, for one. Who else? I think we might be able to ask some PLUG past speakers, hopefully. Their database talk was quite good, although that's one for later on.
When is a good time to do this? Evenings? Weekends? Next year, this year, January, February, etc?
You tell me. I was thinking that people would have more time for such things once Xmas was over when I suggested the new year.
Where would be a good venue? Should we use several different venues or the same one for all?
Elmswell would probably be the best of the venues we've used, as it's near to road and train and quite central. I don't know if Rob is still happy for us to use it, though?
It may be a good idea to ask tsw if we can run them at the UEA too. James, are you out there still?
If we're going to do this then the wiki web pages is probably a good place to build up some lists of people/topics/ venues.
Let's throw it around on-list a little first. I'll summarise soon if people really think it's a good idea and no-one beats me to it.
You can use Elmswell if you wish, we have a few of our own events comming up but it's free most of the time especially weekends and evenings.
We are also upgrading the meeting room with a wireless mike and better projector so it's ideal for doing presentations.
Regards, Rob.
MJ Ray wrote:
Keith Watson Keith.Watson@Kewill.com wrote:
...
Where would be a good venue? Should we use several different venues or the same one for all?
Elmswell would probably be the best of the venues we've used, as it's near to road and train and quite central. I don't know if Rob is still happy for us to use it, though?
To All,
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
I have just got an 80Gb Hdd for our new Linux Fileserver, I was thinking something like this:
/ 2Gb /tmp 2Gb /var 4Gb /usr 5Gb /usr/local 5Gb /home 60Gb swap 2Gb
The machine has 512Mb Ram.
Feedback please! ;o)
Regards,
Michael
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 08/11/2002
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Michael Sage wrote:
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
Some advice on this is available at http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch-partitioning.en.html, but don't take it _too_ seriously: your own preferences will play a large role.
A trick that I used, when I recently replaced my hard drive, was to allocate space to each parition in the same proportions as the used (i.e. full) space in the equivalent paritions on the old hard drive.
HTH
Dan Hatton
Michael Sage wrote:
Feedback please! ;o)
I think you are overspeccing lots of the partitions there, do you really need 10Gb for /usr in total? 4GB for /var may be overkill what is the machine going to be doing? having / at 2GB as you have so much space elsewhere and the same for /tmp is overkill unless you know you will need it.
I would either give /home more space *or* what I would personally do is give / maybe 1Gb max, /var somewhere around 800Mb (although if its a mail server I would perhaps give it upto 20GB+ depending on the number of accounts it will hold also the same thought could apply again if it will be a webserver. I would give /usr a total of about 4GB /tmp a few hundred megs and keep swap at about 2GB. Only you can tell how much you need for /home etc. but my thought would be to leave lots of unpartitioned space if you are not sure what and where the space will go. Probably about half the disk in fact, as that means you can always move data around much easier when you need to repartition it later.
Adam
"Michael Sage" michael.sage@pitman-norwich.co.uk writes:
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
I have just got an 80Gb Hdd for our new Linux Fileserver, I was thinking something like this:
/ 2Gb /tmp 2Gb /var 4Gb /usr 5Gb /usr/local 5Gb /home 60Gb swap 2Gb
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
Keeping it seperate means it is easier to run df and see which filesystems are nearly full and which are empty, especially as this simplifies taking backups. Bascially it means you don't have to run a du -s and wait to find out how much space a filesystem is taking up (and raise your load average) as df will return quickly.
Adam
Adam Bower adam.bower@framestore-cfc.com writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
Keeping it seperate means it is easier to run df and see which filesystems are nearly full and which are empty, especially as this simplifies taking backups. Bascially it means you don't have to run a du -s and wait to find out how much space a filesystem is taking up (and raise your load average) as df will return quickly.
Speeding up du seems a rather marginal advantage to me, if you don't mind my saying.
Disadvanatges of separate filesystems for / and /usr would include a reduced set of facilities available if you boot without mounting non-root filesystems and a greater chance of running out of space on one of them.
(I set mail-followup-to for a reason, BTW.)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:46:42PM +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Speeding up du seems a rather marginal advantage to me, if you don't mind my saying.
Its a major advantage to me in my current work enviroment, it also simplifies how things look on various machines across the network when we export out /usr again, also when we roll out new software that resides in /usr on the network if we fill up partitions we don't break more than we need to. You can then also mount /usr readonly so that when your box crashes you don't have to fsck the filesystem as it should be consistent so you only have to fsck / which should take less time.
Disadvanatges of separate filesystems for / and /usr would include a reduced set of facilities available if you boot without mounting non-root filesystems and a greater chance of running out of space on one of them.
but why would you not mount one at boot? this would only happen if you had a filesystem error and nothing should write to /usr in normal operation so nothing should use any diskspace in the /usr heirachy up and not dead because of an error under /usr which fsck can't fix.
(I set mail-followup-to for a reason, BTW.)
sorry didn't mean to do that, it appears mozilla mail doesn't obey such things correctly then. I wouldn't run mozilla-mail but due to brain dead mail admins I can't change that, I have to run a brain dead mail client at work :(
Adam
Adam Bower abower@thebowery.co.uk writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Speeding up du seems a rather marginal advantage to me, if you don't mind my saying.
Its a major advantage to me in my current work enviroment, it also simplifies how things look on various machines across the network when we export out /usr again, also when we roll out new software that resides in /usr on the network if we fill up partitions we don't break more than we need to.
This sounds entirely cosmetic to me. You don't need a separate /usr on one system to be able to nfs-mount /usr on another!
You can then also mount /usr readonly so that when your box crashes you don't have to fsck the filesystem as it should be consistent so you only have to fsck / which should take less time.
Use ext3 or something if you don't like fsck.
Disadvanatges of separate filesystems for / and /usr would include a reduced set of facilities available if you boot without mounting non-root filesystems and a greater chance of running out of space on one of them.
but why would you not mount one at boot?
Repair and/or reorganization work, usually.
(I set mail-followup-to for a reason, BTW.)
sorry didn't mean to do that, it appears mozilla mail doesn't obey such things correctly then. I wouldn't run mozilla-mail but due to brain dead mail admins I can't change that, I have to run a brain dead mail client at work :(
on Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:44:53PM +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Adam Bower abower@thebowery.co.uk writes:
Its a major advantage to me in my current work enviroment, it also simplifies how things look on various machines across the network when we export out /usr again, also when we roll out new software that resides in /usr on the network if we fill up partitions we don't break more than we need to.
This sounds entirely cosmetic to me. You don't need a separate /usr on one system to be able to nfs-mount /usr on another!
Actually, under many nfs implementations you do, to do it correctly:
The export options are tied to the local mount points in the kernel and must be non-contradictory for any exported subdirectory of the local server mount point.
You say export /usr, the kernel attaches the options to /, oh dear.
The subtree check some nfs implementations have to get around this reduces the reliability and most likely performance of nfs. For the recommendation of using subtree checks with /usr and /var, consider the effect on mail boxes/dirs, software compilation, mail queues (if you are insane) etc. It's fragile, like chroot. How often has chroot been broken wrt security? 3? 5? Something like that.
If you combine /usr into the / filesystem, why have a /usr/bin? Early unix had no such path.
/usr contents is different in usage. It's resources for a running system. / is what you need to boot and by its nature is per-host data. Many systems using, for example, software mode raid, cannot boot off the raid set, so they have to have a seperate root. Likewise for low space devices that net boot. It just makes sense. Also hark back to the days of booting being bounded by cyclinder 1024. Such systems are still used today.. small root at the start of the disk, big /usr elsewhere.
Why do you need device files to be allowed on /usr? you don't, so disable them with a mount option. Why do you need set-id programs on /? you don't, so disable it. You cannot do that with a merged / /usr.
And then there's quotas, and dump/restore..
btw, a seperate 10mb /tmp on a memory based filesystem may help improve performance if you are doing lots of compiling or something that uses lots of temp files. gcc without -pipe uses /tmp to pass things around.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:44:02 +0000 Adam Bower adam.bower@framestore-cfc.com wrote:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
Keeping it seperate means it is easier to run df and see which filesystems are nearly full and which are empty, especially as this simplifies taking backups. Bascially it means you don't have to run a du -s and wait to find out how much space a filesystem is taking up (and raise your load average) as df will return quickly.
There is also the advantage of choosing differing filesystems for differing purposes. At the moment I have / and /tmp as ext2 and everything else as reiserfs. Even if you keep the same filesystem type you can very the block size etc.
Going back to the original list, I would suggest that 2Gb for / is a lot more than is required as this directory will only directly contain things that are needed at boot time like the kernel, the kernel modules, the standard C library, start up scripts, some config files and some basic commands.
The majority of the OS sits under /usr and you need to size that according to what you want to install. Probably 1Gb is the least you could get away with and 5Gb you'd be unlikely to ever fill. Perhaps 2Gb to 4Gb would be a sensible size depending on what software you put on it.
Other partitions depend on what you are doing with the machine.
Steve.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:28:39 +0000 Steve Fosdick fozzy@pelvoux.demon.co.uk wrote:
Going back to the original list, I would suggest that 2Gb for / is a lot more than is required as this directory will only directly contain things that are needed at boot time like the kernel, the kernel modules, the standard C library, start up scripts, some config files and some basic commands.
And I forgot to say...
My / partition is 100Mb and is about 75% full with four different version of the kernel available for boot so 100Mb should be sufficient, perhaps 200Mb if you're paranoid.
Steve.
First, as has been said combine / /usr and /usr/local. I find that 2Gb is plenty. But keep /usr/src/on a separate partition. The reason is below.
Second, configure *two* root partitions. That way, when you wnat to upgrade some critical components e.g. libc or binutils, you can build a new system in your spare partition and avoid any risk to your live system. If you have /usr/src/separated out, then its location does not change when you switch from one root to the other.
Third, make the first parition on your disk /boot, which is shared between both roots. This helps to avoid any lingering problems with the first 1024 cylinders, and simplifies writing your lilo.conf.
/tmp should only need a few Mb, not Gb.
I mount my root as read-only. This helps to prevent both finger trouble and hackers. All executable files and system configurations are in the RO partitions. There are a few files that need to be moved, but the number is now very small. You will also need a loopback FS or a RAM disk for /tmp.
My configuration is
/boot 50Mb RO / 2Gb RO /spare 2Gb RO /usr/src 4Gb RO /var 4Gb RW /home everything else RW
At the end of my boot sequence, in rc.*, I execute SIZE=10000 /bin/dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/tmp.surrogate count=$SIZE /sbin/mke2fs -F /var/tmp.surrogate $SIZE /sbin/losetup /dev/loop0 /var/tmp.surrogate /bin/mount -t ext2 /dev/loop0 /tmp /bin/chmod 1777 /tmp /bin/mount -o ro,remount -n /
The RO partitions get remounted as RW just temporarily when I need to alter something, but for normal oeprations they are switched back to RO.
On 15-Nov-2002 Richard Kettlewell wrote:
"Michael Sage" michael.sage@pitman-norwich.co.uk writes:
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
I have just got an 80Gb Hdd for our new Linux Fileserver, I was thinking something like this:
/ 2Gb /tmp 2Gb /var 4Gb /usr 5Gb /usr/local 5Gb /home 60Gb swap 2Gb
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
-- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:24:59AM -0000, Raphael Mankin wrote:
First, as has been said combine / /usr and /usr/local. I find that 2Gb is plenty. But keep /usr/src/on a separate partition. The reason is below.
I still disagree with this, its personal preference. Also it was mentioned that ext3 will help you fight filesystem corruption but don't trust it, it only came out of experimental with the 2.4.19 kernel and during the last few days or working on a certain movie with a boy wizard in we had problems with a 120Gb disk which had shots on it that were being composited where all of the files disappeared (and nobody typed rm -rf *) and we ended up having to fsck the disk twice to get the data back. (at this point restoring from the backups would have meant running some of the shots back through the render farm I believe which would have meant overnight too!) Anyhow 2Gb would be far to little for me on a /usr partition. What I currently have on my desktop is this:
abower@dylan:~$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda5 749M 66M 646M 10% / /dev/hda4 31M 5.0M 24M 18% /boot /dev/hda6 3.3G 1.8G 1.4G 57% /usr /dev/hda7 842M 210M 590M 27% /var /dev/hda8 4.6G 3.3G 1.2G 74% /opt bagpuss:/home 2.3G 541M 1.8G 24% /home bagpuss:/filestore 49G 29G 20G 59% /filestore
/usr has a kernel source tree in it though, and also Quake II. /opt has unreal tournament 2003 and Quake III in case you were wondering where all the disk space has gone. I still prefer to have a seperate / /boot /usr and /var it means when I need to shuffle around disk space and create new partitions I find it much quicker and easier to do. This disk also is about 40Gb total capacity and has about 10Gb worth of NT/Win98 (games only) and about 18Gb free space and a swap partition at the very end of the disk with 1.5Gb.
Adam
Raphael Mankin raph@panache.demon.co.uk writes:
Second, configure *two* root partitions. That way, when you wnat to upgrade some critical components e.g. libc or binutils, you can build a new system in your spare partition and avoid any risk to your live system.
I would usually suggest using a chroot for this - no reboots required that way.
(And again: I set mail-followup-to for a reason.)
chroot is all very well if the new system is really going to be subsidiary - for ever. but if you are going to switch to the enw system as a primary, then I suggest a completely new partition.
On 17-Nov-2002 Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Raphael Mankin raph@panache.demon.co.uk writes:
Second, configure *two* root partitions. That way, when you wnat to upgrade some critical components e.g. libc or binutils, you can build a new system in your spare partition and avoid any risk to your live system.
I would usually suggest using a chroot for this - no reboots required that way.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:02:34PM +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
(And again: I set mail-followup-to for a reason.)
Interestingly I can't find any RFC that actually requires mail-followup-to to be implemented, does anybody know of such an RFC?
Adam
on Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:04:43PM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:02:34PM +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
(And again: I set mail-followup-to for a reason.)
Interestingly I can't find any RFC that actually requires mail-followup-to to be implemented, does anybody know of such an RFC?
There was an ietf draft but I think that expired. It seems to be a djb invention. http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html rfc2822 (822bis) does not require it. rfc2822 was published in April 2001; Mail-Followup-To: existed before that.
Adam Bower abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
Interestingly I can't find any RFC that actually requires mail-followup-to to be implemented, does anybody know of such an RFC?
I don't think it's ever been in an RFC. Some email clients refuse to implement Bernstein's Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To, including nmh and Evolution. I'm not sure if Moz is another that has made a decision on this.
The correct ways to do it seem to be setting Reply-To if you really want to not get any off-list replies (sender), by using a "List Reply" command (respondant using client supporting List-Post header) or by filtering duplicates (sender getting replies), I think.
MJR
Adam Bower abower@thebowery.co.uk writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
(And again: I set mail-followup-to for a reason.)
Interestingly I can't find any RFC that actually requires mail-followup-to to be implemented, does anybody know of such an RFC?
There isn't one. But I just want people to stop sending me unwanted CCs; MFT is one of the tools that helps achieve this, asking them to stop is another.
Richard Kettlewell wrote on Friday, November 15, 2002 6:32 PM
"Michael Sage" michael.sage@pitman-norwich.co.uk writes:
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
I have just got an 80Gb Hdd for our new Linux Fileserver, I was thinking something like this:
/ 2Gb /tmp 2Gb /var 4Gb /usr 5Gb /usr/local 5Gb /home 60Gb swap 2Gb
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
The glib answer I suppose is another question "what are you trying to do?". More practically, after far too many years setting up and maintaining servers on various systems, I've found it best to be very pragmatic about partitioning servers under any OS. Predicting where the growth is going to be can be difficult. What's the phrase? "Past performance is no indication of future growth!" seems to apply just as much to disk usage as the stock market.
My usual approach is to try and separate high activity from low activity areas e.g. things which change a lot mail. spooling, temporary, etc from things like libraries, executables. etc. which are more static. This tends to help with backup strategies etc. It seems to me you have consciously or unconsciously done this :o)
I would always try and initially keep a good chunk of the disk unallocated so I can extend partitions that were initially undersized. One of the things I like about the unix filesystem model is it's easy to do this. If you find that there's one particular subdirectory that's dominating the partition you can set up another and just mount it at the appropriate point. Growing filesystems/partitons is not so easy with MS Windows (PartitionMagic was a Godsend!).
So I would have partitioned something like;
swap 512Mb / 2Gb /boot 2Gb (not really necessary nowadays but I got into the habit of this when the early larger disks appeared and it's stuck) /tmp 2Gb /var 2Gb /usr 4Gb /usr/local 4Gb /home 8Gb - I'm assuming you have existing user space to cater for and this might need to be bigger or even smaller. Do you use quaotas to manage this?
leaving 55.5Gb unallocated. Then see where your hotspots are and use this accordingly.
Regards,
Keith
Even that seems a little over the top to me.
Generally I tend to partion only /var /home / and obviously /swap separately
In the case of a fileserver, I would tend to dedicate the entire new drive to providing /home and then have another (smaller) to provide the rest.
In fact if it was me, and except for very rare cases I wouldn't be building a fileserver on a single disk in the first place...RAID was invented for a reason (three actually).
I have just got an 80Gb Hdd for our new Linux Fileserver, I was thinking something like this:
/ 2Gb /tmp 2Gb /var 4Gb /usr 5Gb /usr/local 5Gb /home 60Gb swap 2Gb
Why bother separating /, /usr and /usr/local into separate filesystems, BTW? I can see why a separate / makes sense if there's only limited space for the root filesystem, but that's evidently not the case here...
Ok, so I have sorted the partitions out now, cheers all! ;o)
I have hit a problem with Samba, everything else is ok including the very cool webmin (web based admin for linux boxes!), apache et al.
I am trying to use Samba as a PDC, there are no windies boxes on the network so it should be ok, I have follows the Samba Project Documentation to the letter, my 9x clients can log in with encrypted passwords so everything is fine. However I cannot 'promote' an NTx box (i.e Win 2k Pro, XP Pro) in the domain, I get the following error: "The remote procedure call failed".
Any ideas??? :o?
Thanks
Michael
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/2002
Michael Sage michael.sage@pitman-norwich.co.uk wrote:
This is a really silly but quite important question, how do u determin how you partition your harddrive?
My current desktop machine is small /, large /usr and /home, moderate /var which sometimes gets full because of caches.
The gateway/server here runs LVM on all but / now, which was a pain to set up, but removes the worry about getting it right first time because you can resize the partitions (or add another disk) later. I've not had to put it to the test yet, but I think I didn't leave enough room for CD images.
Hi Guys,
I totally agree with David, I think the lectures would certainly be of great value to meetings. I also agree though it is great to meet fellow Linux friends, I feel the time could be used for such lectures.
As David I am relatively new to Linux and a core foundation lecture would be good to start. Though many of you guys will hold such knowledge already, such a lecture will see the areas of interest the audience have hence will aid future meetings and lectures. There is a wealth of knowledge within ALUG and would be great to tap into it :)
I can help out if required for this year as I start studying again from January and with a new family my time is exhausted.
Also aside, has anyone tried to find a venue within Stowmarket, my home town? I wondered because Stowmarket is quite central for Bury, Ipswich, Norwich ...
These are just some thoughts and don't mean to offend anyone that arranges or helps with current meetings :)
Take Care,
J
-----Original Message----- From: main-admin@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-admin@lists.alug.org.uk]On Behalf Of D Rothe Sent: 14 November 2002 19:35 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: [Alug] Re. the Welcome to Linux sessions
Jenny_Hopkins wrote: Re. the Welcome to Linux sessions: http://linuxclub.il.eu.org/newcomers/timetable.html I wonder how many would turn up to the lectures? - it would be quite a lot of work and preparation if no-one were to show up. Wouldn't it basically mean just making the meetings more organised - we already have the
meeting,
the website advertising them, and informal talks.
I think the lectures are a fantastic idea and I would definitely attend (as a relative newcomer to Linux I love the idea of having a time table of dedicated lectures where introductory Linux concepts and practices can be discussed and demonstrated; from my point of view this is far preferable to informal talks)
I would be very happy to help with the meeting preparations.
David
_______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Since I have been working with, and writing about, Unix (and Linux) for over 20 years now, I am happy to do something in this area if you would like to suggest topics. I will kick off the list with 'practical sendmail configuration' and 'security, firewalls and privacy'.
On 14-Nov-2002 Jamie French wrote:
Hi Guys,
I totally agree with David, I think the lectures would certainly be of great value to meetings. I also agree though it is great to meet fellow Linux friends, I feel the time could be used for such lectures. [snip]
-
Adam Bower -
Adam Bower -
D Rothe -
Dan Hatton -
Jamie French -
Keith Watson -
Michael Sage -
MJ Ray -
Raphael Mankin -
Richard Kettlewell -
Robert Tillyard -
Steve Fosdick -
Wayne Stallwood -
xs＠kittenz.org