On 10/11/07, Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, October 11, 2007 1:28 pm, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > >> > >> windows handles ext2/3 with the addition of a simple and free driver. > > > > By the same token, Linux can handle NTFS using the ntfs-3g system. > > > > The St. Albans Neighbourhood Network ( NN ) are a bunch of consumate > > Microsoft Windows devotees. They are taking a huge leap out of their > > comfort zone even considering having Linux files on a machine. At the > > moment, I'd rather not push them any further. > > > > So we are left with a situation where it is actually not that easy to get > a DVD image off their machine: > > 1. there is no DVD writer (according to another post)
On the machine which holds the Linux .iso files, correct. Is it a sensible use of CLUG funds to buy one? > 2. You can't use the commonly available flash drives as they are default > formatted with fat which probably won't take a file >2GB. True, but the're ok for the smaller files. > 3. They won't install the ext2/3 windows driver which would allow a ext2/3 > flash drive to be used. I havn't pushed them on this point. I'm going over there tomorrow to install the new openSUSE files etc., and will speak with them. > 4. They won't allow you to plug a laptop (or presumably an NAS) into their > LAN, despite the fact that it is demonstrably virus free, and despite the > fact that they allow us an ethernet socket in the meeting room, and > despite the fact that if I wanted to attack their lan I could sit down at > any of the other windows machines there. Yes, I know it's illogical. > If the test of this facilty is the degree of use, its got to be made as > usable as possible! True. > Fankly we'd be better using a stand alone linux machine with a cossover > network cable hanging off the back. For the Linux cognosenti like most of the CLUGgers that's true, but it's not for a newcomer who just wants to bung a LiveCD/DVD in the drive slot and give it a whirl. > I am all in favour of this facility, but something seems a little wrong > with it. > > Another thought: the facility is obviously aimed at people without good > net access (or they could download the iso themselves). True, but remember that there are many 'broadband' plans which have ridiculously small traffic caps. Our archive is aimed at those users too. Note that the full Debian archive is approx 14Gb. > However my > experience with ubuntu is that once you install the OS there is typically > update files in the order of magnitude of one CD to bring it up to date > (the exact amount depends where in the release cycle you are obviously, > but even quite soon after release there are quite a few). I guess the same > is true of other distros too. > Is anything being done to cater for the people who get home and find their > computer wants to download 500M of updates over a modem? Thanks for pointing out that situation. It had not occured to me. Looks as if we will have to keep an updates repository from which to generate update disks. What a total pain in the posterior! Anybody got a solution to this problem? The creation of the archive of Linux etc. distro files was triggered off by a list thread some weeks ago - possibly while you were overseas - bemoaning the absense of a Definitive Source for Linux and other Free Software in Christchurch, now that the e-Caf has gone out of business. I decided to approach the St. Albans folk with a view to remedying the situation. They responded positively but the administriviation of the exercise is taking up at least an order of magnetude more of my time than I thought it would. That'll teach me to ... :-) -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell
