On Thu, Jun 20, 2013, at 05:41 PM, Nio Wiklund wrote: > On 2013-06-21 02:21, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>>> And I noticed that the network installation by the mini iso is not >>> portable like the one by the desktop iso. >> Do you mean it set up a static IP address for the Lubuntu machine, >> instead of using DHCP? Or something else? What is a "portable" >> network installation? > I saw it worked but was different to what I am used to. So I installed > it to a USB drive and plugged it into another computer. And I had no > internet connection. Dead! But the instructions on the wiki page, that > Phill asked me to edit, there was a solution. Now it looks and feels > and works as usual. Do you have the "before" and "after" versions of the config files you changed (I'm guessing /etc/network/interfaces, and maybe also /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent- net.rules ? > I think it hardcoded the connection to a MAC address because I ran it > in a machine with two ethernet ports and it asked which one to use (it > did not check which one was connected (only one of them was > connected). Doesn't Ubuntu in general do that? In fact, don't most Linuxes in general do that? I've always had to edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent- net.rules or its equivalent when migrating Linux server images to new hardware, or replacing NICs in servers... I don't generally move desktop machine images around, but I had expected they would need the same tweaking. Are you sure that an Lubuntu desktop install can be migrated to new hardware with different NICs and *not* need any manual fixup of network configuration files? Maybe I am just too stuck in the world of servers!? I can probably test this in a VM, by editing the MAC address of the virtual NIC in the VM. I might try that tonight when I get home. > It is probably enough to run in a VM, but remember to subtract, what > is subtracted from RAM in a typical real machine (256 ---> 242) MB. No. That depends totally on the video hardware of the "real machine". If it uses a real video card, there is generally no subtraction. If it uses shared RAM for video, then that takes away some few MB from the RAM available to Linux. You can usually configure how much it takes away in the BIOS. >>> Or maybe that should belong to item 2, the advanced stuff. To be >>> honest, Knoppix or Puppy are better alternatives than Lubuntu for >>> such low RAM. I have hands on experience from an old Compaq with 192 >>> MB RAM. >> They may be, but we are Lubuntu... recommending other distros is >> outside our scope :) > I wouldn't write that on a wiki page, but we must be able to mention > it in an internal discussion. Sure. > But with that in mind, we might avoid to mention the possibility to > run Lubuntu below 256 MB RAM. I think at minimum we would have a note saying that installing Lubuntu in less than 256MB is not recommended, but for those with a spirit of adventure, see <some wiki page> for ideas that might help them. What's the point of testing the netboot mini.iso if we then do not document its existence? Jonathan -- Jonathan Marsden jmars...@fastmail.fm -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa Post to : lubuntu-qa@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
