Re: Reducing redundancy
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:23:35AM +1100, Adam Brown wrote: As an example of the existing redundancy in the installation documentation, from the documentation page I could potentially arrive at three different installation guides: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install http://www.newriders.com/debian/html/noframes/ http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/installguide/ Ah, that's a different kind of redundancy than one I thought about :) Basically, the first one is the official manual. The second one is a semi-random book about Debian, and the third is oriented towards newbies, with the screenshots, `loose' language and all. I thought about redundancy within one document, a lot of cross-references, stuff like that... - Confusion for users trying to determine an authoratative reference The first document is. I thought it was obvious, since the second is a book (it's available online at its publisher's page), and the third has a warning at the top about it not being official. Another issue is in the development of Debian specific sysadmin and network manuals. It is a little disconcerting the way so much redundant Linux documentation is being developed in parallel. Which reference should a Debian user turn to: the Debian Network Admin guide, the Linux Network HOWTO, the Linux Network Admin Guide or the myriad of other contributed guides? It would seem to make sense to me that Debian joined forces with the developers of the Linux NAG and SAG and helped improve those and added clauses where Debian specific issues arose. Our System and Network administration guides are hardly finished, and they don't look like getting finished soon. I guess we need someone to actually write the docs about that on Debian systems, then it can be decided whether to make it a separate document or a part of the general Linux documents... -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to install from CD
Mh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To whom it may concern- I have downloaded the iso images for Debian 2.2r2, and burned cd's for disks 1 and 2. While trying to boot and install from disk 1 my machine always locks up with the last line being displayed- sym53c416.c:Version 1.0.0 This happens regaredless of the boot options I choose. My system is as follows- Tyan S2390 MB w/ Duron 650 CPU 128 MB RAM Adaptec 2940AU Host Adapter, 3 hard drives and 1 cdrom Ati Rage 128 Video card Intel 82557 based NIC Boot from the 2nd CD. -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boot problem
Grzegorz Bieszczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am trying to install Debian 2.2 r0. While the first boot to start installation system hangs after the line: md driver 0.36.6 MAX_MD_DEV=4, MAX_REAL=8 I was able to install on this computer Redhat 7 and Mandrake 7.2, so the problem seems to be specific to Debian. Well, it's specific to the kernel on the first CD, I'll warrant. Do you have any ideas what's going on? Hardware conflict. Can you say "x86 is a crap architecture"? I suggest you try booting with the 2nd or 3rd CDs, which have kernels more optimized for modern (PCI) hardware. -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reducing redundancy
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 03:57:31PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: As an example of the existing redundancy in the installation documentation, from the documentation page I could potentially arrive at three different installation guides: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/install http://www.newriders.com/debian/html/noframes/ http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/installguide/ Ah, that's a different kind of redundancy than one I thought about :) Basically, the first one is the official manual. The second one is a semi-random book about Debian, and the third is oriented towards newbies, with the screenshots, `loose' language and all. I have read the 'installguide' (3rd one) and personally had nothing to do with it and agree with Mssr Brown that document was unnecessary and whatever work the author did for that document could have been better spent on the main document (for which I have very little help). AFAICT the main technical advantages of the newer doc is that it has tables and pictures. Neither of those can be added to the official installation manual because DebianDoc SGML doesn't support it. The main advantages regarding the text itself is that it's shorter and more to the point, and that it's less official in tone. We can't really have much of that in the official manual because it has to have more detailed explanations, cover a range of possible options during the installation, and it has to sound official because that's what it is. Admittedly none of these obstacles are extremely hard to overcome, but I don't see anyone doing it... Adam (B.)? Another issue is in the development of Debian specific sysadmin and network manuals. It is a little disconcerting the way so much redundant Linux documentation is being developed in parallel. Which reference should a Debian user turn to: the Debian Network Admin guide, the Linux Network HOWTO, the Linux Network Admin Guide or the myriad of other contributed guides? It would seem to make sense to me that Debian joined forces with the developers of the Linux NAG and SAG and helped improve those and added clauses where Debian specific issues arose. Our System and Network administration guides are hardly finished, and they don't look like getting finished soon. I guess we need someone to actually write the docs about that on Debian systems, then it can be decided whether to make it a separate document or a part of the general Linux documents... I again agree with Adam and disagree with you here, Josip. Trying to write the document first, then think about whether to integrate it later is silly. I don't know about you guys, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't take me more than a couple of days to merge in 100KB of content within a text twice as large. But someone's got to write those 100KB of text, and that's what I wouldn't be able to do in the same time, not a chance. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
