on 5-3-2009 12:02 PM Beartooth spake the following:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:20:30 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
[...]
I like CentOS better than Debian also but, apparently, the new Ubuntu
9.04 works really well on netbooks.
It's here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:20:30 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
[...]
I like CentOS better than Debian also but, apparently, the new Ubuntu
9.04 works really well on netbooks.
It's here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook
For the record, I went there, got that, burned
follows ---
SUBJECT: Re: [CentOS] 5.3 on an EeePC??
FROM: Beartooth
TO: centos@centos.org
DATE: 03-05-2009 21:02
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:20:30 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
[...]
I like CentOS better than Debian also but, apparently, the new
Ubuntu
9.04 works really well on netbooks.
It's here: http
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:02:26 + (UTC) Beartooth wrote:
It's here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook
For the record, I went there, got that, burned it to a medium,
and started an install. It came up with some startlingly strong caveat,
to the effect that This will wipe
Beartooth wrote:
I try never to install Ffx anywhere without NoScript, Adblock,
and several more.
I do not use Adblock because I am a member of an online community that
specifically forbids blocking of advertisements, their primary revenue
source.
An exception is made for noscript
nate wrote:
(There are even some things the simpler Red Hattish tools can do that
the Debian ones can't, easily. rpm -qa, for one.)
rpm -qa typically just lists all of the packages on the system,
the equivalent in debian is dpkg -l.
Not really equivalent. The output is only sort of
R P Herrold wrote:
oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
hijacking.
It's just a natural evolution of the conversation. IMO, the answer to
the original question is No, so the obvious next direction to the
conversation is okay, what instead, then?
Nate's answer was
Beartooth wrote:
Why do you want CentOS on an EeePC ?
I have a strong if perhaps irrational preference for the .rpm
family
Me, too, and it's rational in my case. I've experienced the whole range
of both sets of tools, from the ground up. RPMs are simpler to build
than DEBs, and
nate wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did fine
with all the same exact
Warren Young wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
Why do you want CentOS on an EeePC ?
I have a strong if perhaps irrational preference for the .rpm
family
Me, too, and it's rational in my case. I've experienced the whole range
of both sets of tools, from the ground up. RPMs
Michael A. Peters wrote:
nate wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:57:26 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
David M Lemcoe Jr. wrote:
[]
The key - Don't use Open Office, use AbiWord and Gnumeric instead.
OpenOffice is total bloat.
Is that still true if you install only OO-writer and its
dependencies?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:00:24 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
[]
Oh, how do you unsoldier the drive? My understanding is this unit has
the drive hard wired
You don't. Nobody touched it.
What I know of hardware would go in a gnat's eye. But when the
tech
Warren Young wrote:
I think much of the hype about how great the Debian packaging system is
came from the days before they adopted yum, so Debian fans could point
to apt-get and say Isn't it great to be able to install packages from
the net directly from the command line? Sure, once upon a
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, nate wrote:
It's more about the repositories themselves, the QA behind them,
the integration of packages. A single unified source for patches,
security fixes etc.
From Debian 5.0 (lenny):
Total package names: 29647 (1186k)
Normal packages: 22400
Pure virtual
R P Herrold wrote:
oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
hijacking. Quantity does not imply quality, and AWOL
maintainers who move on is a problem in all of FOSS
Quality is implied by the hefty QA process debian goes
through, and the long release cycles. I thought I had
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate cen...@linuxpowered.net wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
hijacking. Quantity does not imply quality, and AWOL
maintainers who move on is a problem in all of FOSS
Quality is implied by the hefty QA
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate cen...@linuxpowered.net wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
hijacking. Quantity does not imply quality, and AWOL
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:26:22PM -0400, JohnS wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate cen...@linuxpowered.net wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 17:39 -0400, fred smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:26:22PM -0400, JohnS wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate cen...@linuxpowered.net wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
oh
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM, JohnS jse...@gmail.com wrote:
Not crazy about smooching huh? Ever bother to really research the facts?
RedHat and MS are parteners! In the Virtualization area and more.
I used openSUSE for quite a while -- even after the agreement (11.0 is still
on what is
Beartooth wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:24:57 -0700, nate wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did fine
with all the same exact hardware,
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Given that limitation, speed of boot becomes a major criterion.
F10 (and also, believe it or not, Pupeee) took *over* ten minutes -- yes,
real sixty-second minutes; it's not a typo -- just to boot. And then had
to find wifi.
WHAT!!???
I just
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:32:00 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Given that limitation, speed of boot becomes a major criterion.
F10 (and also, believe it or not, Pupeee) took *over* ten minutes --
yes, real sixty-second minutes; it's not a typo -- just to boot. And
Beartooth wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:32:00 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Given that limitation, speed of boot becomes a major criterion.
F10 (and also, believe it or not, Pupeee) took *over* ten minutes --
yes, real sixty-second minutes; it's not
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did fine
with all the same exact hardware,
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did fine
with all the same exact hardware, suggested that CentOS,
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:24:57 -0700, nate wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Some one on a local LUG, where I had mentioned that other OSs did
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Beartooth bearto...@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:24:57 -0700, nate wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use
If Puppy linux is taking a long time to boot, I'm not sure how you think
CentOS is going to fare better. What sort of drive does this thing have? You
may need to look into replacing that if you want faster bootup speeds and
not the OS.
___
CentOS mailing
Beartooth wrote:
Given that limitation, speed of boot becomes a major criterion.
F10 (and also, believe it or not, Pupeee) took *over* ten minutes -- yes,
real sixty-second minutes; it's not a typo -- just to boot. And then had
to find wifi.
I think you really want something that
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Beartooth bearto...@comcast.net wrote:
I have an ASUS EeePC 701 (with 2GB of RAM and an 8 GB card), on
which I've installed CentOS on the hard-drive-plus-card. But it can't
even use my eth0.
Anybody know what drivers (for wireless as well as
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 15:35 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
Given that limitation, speed of boot becomes a major criterion.
F10 (and also, believe it or not, Pupeee) took *over* ten minutes -- yes,
real sixty-second minutes; it's not a typo -- just to boot. And then had
Les Mikesell wrote:
I think you really want something that does suspend/wakeup right on a
netbook - or even a normal laptop.
CentOS does indeed do all that and is a usable platform on the eeepc,
with a few edits.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522...@icq
35 matches
Mail list logo
