Re: Plan of action for dev-install

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Randy Heineke wrote:

> > Do we install basic networking and allow FTP install?
> 
> This is a good question because I think we are already installed if we
> have networking up.  

Not really, you can do a magrinal install that includes networking before
you select one of the package bundles.

> Again I don't see this as a priority.

I was suggesting it because it is probably the #1 use of Linux in the
corporate world right now.  Either as a SAMBA server in a windows network
or as an Apache server on the internet.

> What's whiptail?

Not sure, I have not looked at it yet.  I am under the impression that it
is a manuing language a la dialog designed for newt.

> 
> > 1) text-based server
> > 2) user desktop
> > 3) network admin desktop
> > 4) software developer
> > ... you get the idea
> 
> 2 for sure.  What's the difference between 4 and 2? What's 3?  Who wants
> 1? 

4 would give you things like kernel source, gcc, debugging, more extensive
libs, etc. that the average desktop user might not need.

3 would give you GUI tools for managing network services like eximon,
provide things like NIS support, SAMBA, etc.
> 
> 
> I'll be impressed if the one of the off the shelf kernel works on my PC.

What kind of PC do you have?  What is peculiar about its configuration?

> > COMPROMISE: fibs the dos partition, create a linux swap partition. Make a
> > dos or ext2 filesystem in the swap partition. Use that as the loop device
> > file on install, once it is loaded you can mkswap that partition to
> > destroy it and mkfs the linux partition and continue on with the install.
> > 
> 
> It is worth considering that a user has a Linux zip disk and goes to the
> public library's computer to do work in Linux.  The user does not alter
> the library's machine.  Later tkes the zip disk to a friends to demo
> SEUL.

Good idea. Also, around here, recordable CDROM's are all the rage.  At
less than $1 per blank disk, and the cost of the drives under $300, I
suspect that many will also be burning CDROM's. 


> George, thanks for the S.u.S.E tip.  I am however fascinated by the irony
> of using information that is available from a MicroSoft Windows
> installation.  I can't remeber what big technical breakthrough Windows95
> was supposed to be.  I do remember that there were proud that it
> was able to work with virtually every piece of hardware known and
> they introduced PnP.  It looks like the info should be freely available
> to us.

Some of the information is available but too many maufacturers are still
closed in their internal details about what to DO with that information.
Yeah, I can tell that I have a XYZ card ... now, how do I talk to it?

It was a big technical breakthrough because it saved the butts of the
semiconductor and software industries.  In one fell swoop it obsoleted
nearly every PC on the planet by being such a bloated, lumbering piece of
software that it required more RAM, a CPU upgrade (486 to Pentium) and
more disk space to put those giant apps not to mention the new apps would
not run on Win3.

Windows was Silicon Valley's and Redmond's love child. It was a great
triumph for Microsoft because they could claim that they now looked a lot
like OS/2 Warp which had already been shipping for some time, ran Win3
apps and was much more stable.  Microsoft figured one out of three aint
bad (it was late, it was unstable but it did run win3 apps). Intel loved
it because they could now get rid of those white cotton bunny suits and
exchange them for the really neat multicolored mylar ones.  Those things
cost money, and Mocrosift provided the market. They FORCED the market into
those high-end processors by producing an operating system that ran like
crap without them.  Besides, the stereo in the Intel fab area is a lot
better now, too.


George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.