🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5g4kc7$1g8@loth.demon.co.uk>,
Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Are there any distributions out there aimed at 'techies'? In other words,
>that expect you to know what you're doing on the install, but actually provide
>packages with all the bits present (and working), etc, etc. Alternatively,
>does anyone know of any 'bootstrap' distributions that would provide me with
>enough of a working system to build everything else from scratch? Thanks in
>advance..

As others have said, the choice is really Redhat or Debian. From the 
sound of it, you've considered those, but dismissed them as for `newbies'
or something. Don't, in either system you _could_ just use the 
distribution to install a minimal system then compile all the software
you want from sourcem, but why would you want to? If you really want to
spend time compiling software then why not contribute towards Debian?
i.e. Install Debian then find something useful that's not part of
the distribution and become a package maintainer.

On 11 Mar 1997 21:55:19 -0000, dirk@loth.demon.co.uk (Steve Dodd)
wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I've finally had it up to _here_ with Slackware. When I first started off
>with Linux and knew nothing about it, Slackware was wonderful. Now I'm older
>and wiser (by 2+ years or so), I seem to keep finding little niggles in
>Slackware 96. I had problems installing it ( /dev/console missing, syslogd
>dumping core), along with all sorts of other things. The thing that finally
>flipped me out tonight was finding /usr/include/ndbm.h and dbm.h missing - 
>a small thing I know, but on top of everything else I feel it is time for
>a change..

That was pretty much the reason I dropped Slackware back on 2.2.0. :)

>Are there any distributions out there aimed at 'techies'? In other words,
>that expect you to know what you're doing on the install, but actually provide
>packages with all the bits present (and working), etc, etc.

I expect a lot of people will suggest Debian. I haven't tried it, so I
can't comment, but it seems to require a lot of palaver to install,
compared with Red Hat, which I use.

Red Hat asks as many questions as are needed (IMHO) - no more. Most
things work out of the box, once you've worked through the errata list
on their web site. Contrary to popular belief, Red Hat doesn't stop
you from using .tgz's or any other Slackware-isms, but you will need
to get used to get used to the fact that RH (and Debian?) complies to
the Linux Filesystem Standard, unlike Slackware.

> Alternatively,
>does anyone know of any 'bootstrap' distributions that would provide me with
>enough of a working system to build everything else from scratch? Thanks in

Drop-In Linux (DILINUX)?

>advance..
>
>	Cheers,
>		Steve

Regards,
Alex.
-- 
I'm looking for employment in Bristol, Bath, Reading or Cambridge, UK.
Please see <http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccajb/cv.html> for more details
-=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=-
Alex Butcher - Micro Support Technician  Tel +44 (0)117 928 9000 x3038
Computing Service, University of Bristol, Tyndall Ave. Bristol BS8 1UD

Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Are there any distributions out there aimed at 'techies'? In other words,
> that expect you to know what you're doing on the install, but actually provide
> packages with all the bits present (and working), etc, etc. Alternatively,
> does anyone know of any 'bootstrap' distributions that would provide me with
> enough of a working system to build everything else from scratch? Thanks in
> advance..

does it have to be linux?  NetBSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD) are all fairly complete
OS's and are BSD to boot..  of the three, FreeBSD probably has a more friendly
package installation scheme (there are plenty of pre-compiled packages on
ftp.demon.co.uk)

NetBSD at least runs linux binaries too, so you can just copy your old packages
over if you wanted to..

iain

On 11 Mar 1997 21:55:19 -0000, Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Are there any distributions out there aimed at 'techies'? In other words,
>that expect you to know what you're doing on the install, but actually provide
>packages with all the bits present (and working), etc, etc. Alternatively,
>does anyone know of any 'bootstrap' distributions that would provide me with
>enough of a working system to build everything else from scratch? Thanks in
>advance..

I would say "expect you to know what you're doing" and "packages with
all the bits present" are in conflict!

My subjective impressions are that: Debian is perhaps more configurable,
where Redhat is easier to install.  Debian 1.2 needs 7 disks and the
CDROM.  I believe Redhat is far fewer now.

For a simple bootstrap distribution try MCC 2+, which is small although
still in beta.  It can be converted into Debian as well.

-- 
Steve Mynott, Webmedia Ltd, 2 Kendall Place,  London W1H 3AH
Email: stevey@webmedia.com Mobile: 0956 265761  Work: 0171 317 1341
PGP: finger stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk Home: +44 171 SCAN4IT

On 13 Mar 1997 09:37:43 GMT, stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk (Steve
Mynott) wrote:

>My subjective impressions are that: Debian is perhaps more configurable,
>where Redhat is easier to install.  Debian 1.2 needs 7 disks and the
>CDROM.  I believe Redhat is far fewer now.

One or none with 4.0. ISTR mention of LOADLIN being available together
with a zImage on the CD. I don't have an official RH CD, so I can't
check.

Also, apparently, /some/ of the RH4.0 CDs were bootable, if your BIOS
supported it (Hi Toro?). Allegedly, the entire production run of
official RH4.1 CDs is.

>Steve Mynott, Webmedia Ltd, 2 Kendall Place,  London W1H 3AH

Regards,
Alex.
-- 
I'm looking for employment in Bristol, Bath, Reading or Cambridge, UK.
Please see <http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccajb/cv.html> for more details
-=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=-
Alex Butcher - Micro Support Technician  Tel +44 (0)117 928 9000 x3038
Computing Service, University of Bristol, Tyndall Ave. Bristol BS8 1UD

In article <slrn5ifiqo.64i.stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk>,
	stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk (Steve Mynott) writes:

> My subjective impressions are that: Debian is perhaps more configurable,
> where Redhat is easier to install.  Debian 1.2 needs 7 disks and the
> CDROM.

Debian needs five discs currently. The next version should install off one
disc for CD, though will still need lots of discs for an ftp install (which
I don't think RH supports) or an nfs install (which RH will do off one disc)

> I believe Redhat is far fewer now.

Redhat will do CD or nfs installs off one disc, or, if you already have dos
installed, it can use loadlin to boot without using any floppies at all.

In article <slrn5ifiqo.64i.stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk>,
	stevey@stevey.webmedia.co.uk (Steve Mynott) writes:
> For a simple bootstrap distribution try MCC 2+, which is small
> although still in beta.  It can be converted into Debian as well.

Coo, MCC, that takes me back a fair while. Good to know it's being
resurrected -- I think I've still got a tape with 0.96/7 on it
somewhere... 

-- 
Piers Cawley

dirk@loth.demon.co.uk (Steve Dodd) writes:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've finally had it up to _here_ with Slackware. When I first started off
> with Linux and knew nothing about it, Slackware was wonderful. Now I'm older
> and wiser (by 2+ years or so), I seem to keep finding little niggles in
> Slackware 96. I had problems installing it ( /dev/console missing, syslogd
> dumping core), along with all sorts of other things. The thing that finally
> flipped me out tonight was finding /usr/include/ndbm.h and dbm.h missing - 
> a small thing I know, but on top of everything else I feel it is time for
> a change..
> 
> Are there any distributions out there aimed at 'techies'? In other words,
> that expect you to know what you're doing on the install, but actually provide
> packages with all the bits present (and working), etc, etc. Alternatively,
> does anyone know of any 'bootstrap' distributions that would provide me with
> enough of a working system to build everything else from scratch? Thanks in
> advance..
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 		Steve

	I don't understand your question, you say you want a
	distribution for techies, but you also say you don't
	want something that might require you to roll your
	sleeves up and fix things. 

	If you want a boot-strap distribution, that requires
	you to build things from "scratch", then you are a
	very brave person. You will soon realise what an
	enormous amount of work it is to put a distribution
	together. Even then, you will probably be taking large
	pre-assembed components (eg X11) and INSTALLING them.

	RedHat comes with it's own boot disks, that's a good
	place to start, then have a look at

http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/Misc/util-linux-2.6.lsm

	Even the best utilities that install 'out-of-the-box'
	benefit from getting involved, and tweaking to some
	extent, you will quickly see that a fully working
	package, is running on a carefully written
	configuration, which the original author may have
	documented (in the source) but not "spoon-fed" to you.

	Debian is also a good place to start, as it is in
	need of second points-of-view. (Put 2 sys-admins in
	a room -- you get four "ideal" configuration, put
	200 on the 'Net, and you get a common-denominator,
	that represents what they think OTHER people expect
	- look at /etc/rc.d for example, what a mess, but
	it's _supposed_ to be something like that.

	Have a play with the mini-distibutions (a boot
	diskette is a "complete" sub-system) and you will
	then realise just how extensive the task is.

	You will be the first to announce that a missing
	/dev/console line in a make-dev configuration script
	is nit-picking, easily-fixed, trivial ... it just
	didn't make it to the CDROM on schedule.

     Graham             gps@trix.dircon.co.uk
-- 
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Linux Info Pages:  http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/Raven
     Home Page, click:  http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~trix/
     --------------------------------------------------------------

 Before I start, thanks to everyone else who has provided recommendations
 or constructive criticism..

Graham Swallow (gps@trix.dircon.co.uk) wrote:

: 	I don't understand your question, you say you want a
: 	distribution for techies, but you also say you don't
: 	want something that might require you to roll your
: 	sleeves up and fix things. 

 Yes, I guess that sort of came out wrong. I think I was thinking in terms
either of a reasonably 'bug-free' distribution which might not have had a
cozy user interface like Slackware's OR of a sort boot strap distribution..

: 	If you want a boot-strap distribution, that requires
: 	you to build things from "scratch", then you are a
: 	very brave person. You will soon realise what an
: 	enormous amount of work it is to put a distribution
: 	together. Even then, you will probably be taking large
: 	pre-assembed components (eg X11) and INSTALLING them.

 I suspect you are right - I apologise if my original post sounded a bit
arrogant - it was posted in a fit of pique :)

 I suspect what I *may* do is to stick with Slackware, gradually rebuilding
and reconfiguring various packages as I discover problems or they are upgraded
I may also produce a small Slackware 'glitches' page, and possibly put up
diffs that are required to get various packages to compile.. as you say, I
guess it will depend on how much time I have free..

: 	Debian is also a good place to start, as it is in
: 	need of second points-of-view. (Put 2 sys-admins in

 I had a look at debian; I like the concept of a distribution with lots of
contributors - I'm just not totally keen on the result (probably a result of
having been biased to Slackware).

 Incidentally, someone mentioned that Slackware does not conform to the
file system layout standard (sorry, it's real name has slipped my mind for
the moment). Could anyone suggest where I might find a copy of this document?

: 	You will be the first to announce that a missing
: 	/dev/console line in a make-dev configuration script
: 	is nit-picking, easily-fixed, trivial ... it just
: 	didn't make it to the CDROM on schedule.

Point taken!

	Cheers,
		Steve

In article <5gi7rg$48h$1@newsserver.dircon.co.uk>,
	gps@trix.dircon.co.uk (Graham Swallow) writes:

> 	If you want a boot-strap distribution, that requires
> 	you to build things from "scratch", then you are a
> 	very brave person. You will soon realise what an
> 	enormous amount of work it is to put a distribution
> 	together. Even then, you will probably be taking large
> 	pre-assembed components (eg X11) and INSTALLING them.

Why? X11 is a very easy thing to configure and compile. I wouldn't want
to put a distribution together myself, and would certainly shy away from
writing all the boot scripts etc, but I compiled my X from source.

In article <5gip68$pf@loth.demon.co.uk>
           dirk@loth.demon.co.uk "Steve Dodd" writes:

>  I suspect what I *may* do is to stick with Slackware, gradually rebuilding
> and reconfiguring various packages as I discover problems or they are upgraded
> I may also produce a small Slackware 'glitches' page, and possibly put up
> diffs that are required to get various packages to compile.. as you say, I
> guess it will depend on how much time I have free..

This would be a welcome service.  Slackware does seem to come with 
niggling little configuration bugs, and I've had problems several times 
with various missing device files in different Slackware distributions.

Simple, fairly obvious things, you would think....

-- 
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..

On 17 Mar 1997 06:43:20 -0000, dirk@loth.demon.co.uk (Steve Dodd)
wrote:

> Incidentally, someone mentioned that Slackware does not conform to the
>file system layout standard (sorry, it's real name has slipped my mind for
>the moment). Could anyone suggest where I might find a copy of this document?

Me? At least Slackware didn't at version 2.2.0 - I assume it still
doesn't.

The FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) is available from
<URL:http://www.pathname.com/fhs/>. FHS is the new name for FSSTND
(the Linux Filesystem Standard).

Regards,
Alex.
-- 
I'm looking for employment in Bristol, Bath, Reading or Cambridge, UK.
Please see <http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccajb/cv.html> for more details
-=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=-
Alex Butcher - Micro Support Technician  Tel +44 (0)117 928 9000 x3038
Computing Service, University of Bristol, Tyndall Ave. Bristol BS8 1UD

dirk@loth.demon.co.uk (Steve Dodd) writes:

>  Incidentally, someone mentioned that Slackware does not conform to the
> file system layout standard (sorry, it's real name has slipped my mind for
> the moment). Could anyone suggest where I might find a copy of this document?

	http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/fsstnd/

	It's dated 28 March 1995

     Graham             gps@trix.dircon.co.uk
-- 
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Linux Info Pages:  http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/Raven
     Home Page, click:  http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~trix/
     --------------------------------------------------------------

Graham Swallow <gps@trix.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>	http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/fsstnd/
>	It's dated 28 March 1995

The revised version is called the FHS (Filesystem Heirarchy Standard).
I think you can find it through any of the Linux Documentation Project
mirrors, e.g. http://www.mcc.ac.uk/LinuxDoc/linux.html

Dave
-- 
Dave Holland                                           93djh2@eng.cam.ac.uk
Trinity Hall, Cambridge, UK                          dave@zenda.demon.co.uk

In article <5gkeae$hj$1@eddie.sonnet.co.uk>,
mnb20@cam.ac.uk (Mark Baker) writes:

> In article <5gi7rg$48h$1@newsserver.dircon.co.uk>,
> 	gps@trix.dircon.co.uk (Graham Swallow) writes:
> 
>> 	If you want a boot-strap distribution, that requires
>> 	you to build things from "scratch", then you are a
>> 	very brave person. You will soon realise what an
>> 	enormous amount of work it is to put a distribution
>> 	together. Even then, you will probably be taking large
>> 	pre-assembed components (eg X11) and INSTALLING them.
> 
> Why? X11 is a very easy thing to configure and compile. I wouldn't want
> to put a distribution together myself, and would certainly shy away from
> writing all the boot scripts etc, but I compiled my X from source.

	Exactly, if ./configure && make install works, then it's a
	large pre-assembled (self inflating) component. 

	Now what about loading your own TryeType fonts to
	X11, latex, and ghostscript -d faxhigh ?
	
	Personally I see more work that benefit, but those
	who manage it, have produced well integreated,
	pre-assembled components and support docs.

     Graham             gps@trix.dircon.co.uk
-- 
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Linux Info Pages:  http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/Raven
     Home Page, click:  http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~trix/
     --------------------------------------------------------------

"GS" == Graham Swallow <gps@trix.dircon.co.uk> writes:

 >>  Why? X11 is a very easy thing to configure and compile. I wouldn't want
 >>  to put a distribution together myself, and would certainly shy away from
 >>  writing all the boot scripts etc, but I compiled my X from source.

 GS>  Exactly, if ./configure && make install works, then it's a
 GS>  large pre-assembled (self inflating) component. 

Huh?  Does XFree nowadays distribute their packages with GNU autoconf
(./configure)?

-- 
	nicolai					nicolai@gnu.ai.mit.edu
						nicolai@bigbro.demon.co.uk
	"Hacken bis die Welt untergeht"