Subject: Re: big problems with installation

From: Martin Konold <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 21:59:47 +0200

> > Hello,
> >   I have an old AMD' 80386 40MHz with 4MB of RAM and I really like
> > to install Linux on it. I spent some time looking around and
> > then I decided to proceed with the Debian distribution.
> > Got the five disks of the 0.93R6 version I started the installation 
> > but with no success at all.
> > I disabled all the option for shadowing ROM and I deleted all
> > the data on the HD (Conner CP30104 121MB) before to start.
> > Then I ran the boot and root disks (created with dd ...).
> 
> Why don't you try installing Debian 1.1 beta instead of 0.93R6? It's
> located in the unstable directory of your friendly Debian mirror site.
> but don't be misled by the 'unstable' name... 1.1 is now in late beta and
> is quite stable now. And the installation process has been improved quite
> a bit in 1.1.

I do agree. You really should go for 1.1 beta. This version is supposed 
to work with only 4mb. There have been recent changes in the setup 
procedure to ensure that it is possible to install with 4mb. If it doesnt 
work than something is definetely broken (Even win95 can be installed on 
4mb machines :-) Please tell the mailing list if you are succesful with 
1.1 beta. (BTW: Wenn will 1.1 be released?)

YOurs,
martin

---

From: Martin Konold <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:15:19 +0200

> Then maybe the warning signs in the ftp sites should be updated?  Back when
> I went for Debian I saw lots of them lying around (and so I went to 0.93R6,
> which indeed prooved less stable than "unstable"), as well as when I mirrored
> unstable 1.1.
> 

I also do agree here!
1.1 went to public beta a while ago. This should be mentioned on the 
mirror sites in an  apropriate way.

Yours,
martin

---

From: Amos Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 22:55:14 +0300

Cheers.

-- 
--Amos Shapira                  | "Of course Australia was marked for
                                |  glory, for its people had been chosen
[email-masked]                  |  by the finest judges in England."
                                |                         -- Anonymous

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 13:17 PDT

Yes, it's time for us to remove 0.93 from the FTP site. I'll think about
this for a while before I do it, though.

	Bruce
--
Pixar's Toy Story: Over 1/3 Billion dollars world box office so far.

Bruce Perens AB6YM          [email-masked]            http://www.hams.com/

---

From: Martin Konold <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:33:06 +0200

> this for a while before I do it, though.

I vote for not deleting it but for renaming to obsolete or old.
We should not remove the last stable version before 1.1 is released and 
proven to be stable.

What do you think?

Yours,
-- martin

// Martin Konold, Muenzgasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany  // 
// Email: [email-masked]            // 
//    http://www.schwaben.de/linux                        // 
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in
whole or in part.   License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft
for $299. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.

---

From: Matthew Bailey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

> this for a while before I do it, though.

Lets be kind to our mirrors...... :)

We also need to move the 1.1 into place when this happens.....

Then we need to create the next generation of unstable trees whatever 
they might be called also at this time... :)

Matt

---

From: Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 15:39:13 -0700 (PDT)

> which indeed prooved less stable than "unstable"), as well as when I mirrored

My 0.93R6 system at home is the most stable linux system I have ever seen.
Now that 1.1 is nearly ready for release, I agree that it is approaching
the same level of stability.  It is true that 0.93 probably is not
compatible with some of the newer hardware and software, but it is
certainly worthy of its status as a "stable" distribution.

Regarding the removal of 0.93 from ftp sites, can't we keep it available
as an "old" distribution?  There may be some people who will want to
continue using it for some time.  

Syrus.

----------------------------------------------------------
Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[email-masked]>    UCSD Physics Dept.

---

From: Amos Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:11:31 +0300

> certainly worthy of its status as a "stable" distribution.

Well, maybe I haven't used the right term.  What I ment is that
the system (the kernel) never crashed on me (Linux haven't crashed
on me for a long time, but I'm not using it too heavily right now),
but things like ange-ftp not working under emacs, lots of missing
goodies etc.

Right now I'm running 1.1 upgraded from 0.93R6 with most programs
still from my short 0.93 era with no problems (except for the initial
kernel-compile problems you probably saw on the list).

> continue using it for some time.

I suppose that should be a gentler aproach.

Cheers.