Richard Owlett wrote:
> Rich Shepard wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>> On a language related forum I asked for recommendation of a small distro
>>> that would be attractive to users of that forum. Slackware was one
>>> recommended, though I'd hardly call it small ;/ A Google search then gave
>>> SLAX as being Slackware based.
>>
>> Slackware can be as thin as you want. When you install it you can select
>> the packages to install. It supports older hardware well, too.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
> Well, to paraphrase "Bard upon Avon":
> To acquire thinly or install thinly, THAT is the question.
> {I've got a English professor groaning very loudly ;}
>
> I was irritated by the excessive size of Debian/Ubuntu Live
> Distros at ~1 600+ MB CD. store.slackware.com shows
> Slackware as a *6 CD* set.
>
> Now I have to admit that if I went the Debian and/or Ubuntu
> route, I might ask how much of the respective repositories
> would be available on CD. I *AM* on dial-up :)
>
> THAT was the attraction of SLAX - the _apparent_ opportunity
> to ONLY download what I would use. Having just spent ~1 hour
> browsing the SLAX website, I'm not so certain of that reality.
>
As I was writing above, Elcaset pointed out SLAX wAs no
longer maintained :<
_______________________________________________
PLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
