SoiF wrote:
>
> On 15-Feb-99 George Toft a dit .....:
> \>
> \> SoiF wrote:
> \>>
> \>> Hi ..
> \>>
> \>> I 'm wondering how can i upgrade my 5.3 (commercial edition) to a 6.0
> \>> version.
> \>> Does I need to buy a another CD distro or can i download the 6.0 somewhere
> \>> (where ?? )
> \>
> \> ftp.suse.de or ftp.suse.com
> \>
> \>
> \>> I don't want to pay every 6 months to have recent distro. Should i leave
> \>> suse
> \>> for a more free distro like Debian or else ??
> \>
> \> Huh? What is more free than an ftp site (a fast one at
> \> that)
> \> or a $2 CD?
> \>
>
> Equal ...
>
> And i can't find the way to make CD with the content of the ftp site ..
>
> If there is a doc somewhere ok .. that good but .. the only thing i saw is
> iso.suse.6.evaluation and nothing else ..
Well I sure put my foot in my mouth. You are correct!
I apologize, and I think this is something SuSE needs to
address.
> I don't have permanent ftp but i can download all the site on my computer and
> burn CD next .. but there no doc or help file to do it .. so i think SuSE don't
> really want to make it availlable
The program "Adaptec Easy CD Creator," which came with my CD
writer will make a CD from that image. The program
"file2cd"
(which is freeware available from
http://www.goldenhawk.com/products/freeware.htm) will do
this also.
Maybe SuSE thinks this task is too trivial to have to
include
instructions.
> \>
> \> If you don't want to buy the commercial distro
> \> every few months you have two options:
> \> 1. Buy a GPL CD from www.cheapbytes.com or www.lsl.com
> \> US$1.99
> \> 2. Download it from the SuSE ftp server.
>
> There is a 6.0 GPL are you sure ??? i saw only 5.3 ..
Like I said - I was wrong. I'll do more research before
I shoot off my mouth again.
> \> Personally I don't mind paying for the commercial
> \> versions as it supports the cause. I do mind paying
> \> retail, and that's why I buy from www.cheapbytes.com -
> \> I get the commercial box for 30% off.
>
> not me .... pay every 3 month for using my computer it's a bit strong
>
> \> Finally, if you read this list, you'll see that 4 weeks ago,
> \> 5.3 was still the current release, and has far fewer
> \> problems than 6.0. This craze about getting the latest
> \> and greatest is a behaviour thrust upon us by money-
> \> grubbing capitalists like Bill Gates that want to soak
> \> us for everything we've got to fix the bugs that shouldn't
> \> have been there in the first place. SuSE is a fine
> \> product, and 5.3 is awesome. Show your friend the volume
> \> of 6.0-related problems and 5.3-related problems.
> \> Come to think of it, why doesn't your friend subscribe to
> \> this list and see these things for himself.
>
> Yes .. but he (and me too) bougth a SMP card .. so we really want to have
> kernel 2.2 on this box . And the smp-faq said that there is a lot of trouble
> about libc5 program because of some bugy ltread implementation so ..
>
> Upgrade is the only solution we have .
This is one area I have no experience, but I'm pretty
sure Linux has supported SMP for a few years. I can't
imagine Microsoft being able to do ANYTHING more than
Linux in any area (operating systems only), and NT
has supported SMP since NT was released.
Anyone else comment on SMP?
> \> I'm waiting for 6.1 when all the glibc problems
> \> and the kernel 2.2.? bugs are worked out. I use
> \> SuSE 5.3 because it works, and it's stable. Forget
> \> the latest and greatest. Unix has been around for
> \> almost 30 years, and it's surely not obsolete.
> \>
> \> Spend the two bucks (US$1.99) - it'll keep you from
> \> feeling angry and it ensures your distro is glitch-free.
> \>
>
> It 's not a stablility pb . I want to have my SMP work fine with all feature
> so i need a kernel 2.2 compliant distro ..
>
> Installing 2.2 on suse 5.3 is too horrible .. lot of rpm are really too old ..
>
> \> Speaking of stable, look what I found in a Windows
> \> easter egg: 27 people worked on the design of Win95;
> \> 7 tested it; and 4 made sure it was stable. That
> \> violates everything we've learned in my software
> \> design classes. But then, nobody would have a need
> \> to upgrade to Win98 if Win95 worked.
> \>
>
> I don't really agree .. because some features on 98 aren't in 95 ..
> I don't said that a good or bad thing .
What was PC Magazine and PC/Computing's headlines in
1992 referring to Win3.1:
"The Most Stable Windows Yet!!! Say goodbye to
crashes forever!"
What was PC Magazine and PC/Computing's headlines in
1995 referring to Win95:
"The Most Stable Windows Yet!!! Say goodbye to
crashes forever!"
What was PC Magazine and PC/Computing's headlines in
1998 referring to Win98:
"The Most Stable Windows Yet!!! Say goodbye to
crashes forever!"
What was PC Magazine and PC/Computing's headlines in
1999 referring to Win2000:
"The Most Stable Windows Yet!!! Say goodbye to
crashes forever!"
It's the same old line, the same old promise, and
by Microsoft's President's own admission (October 1998):
Windows NT does not yet deliver on the promises made
when it was released in 1992.
Anyway, I'm sorry about the misconception that
SuSE 6.0 was available from CheapBytes.
George
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
