Time of the year when I try to get a Linux setup working, ..

Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

It's the time of the year when I try to get Linux working again. (Did
Slackware, tried Redhat, tried Debian, managed to boot Mandrake, Suse
actually did something useful). Been trying since '98 or something.

A bit of rant/background here, please skip right to the last paragraph
if you don't think understanding where I'm coming from would help in
making a recommendation.

Looking back, I realized my main problem is I have no idea why they
worked and not knowing why simply breaks them for me. I look at it
bewildered and lost. There are thousands of files all over the place
and I have no idea which are useful and which aren't. It's as bad as
Windows was at first to me. And I hate being the typical girl whose
first thought when the PC don't work is to cry for help or scream
what's wrong with this stupid computer it doesn't work!

Things have become so user friendly it's like my first experience when
using Windows from DOS. I have no idea how it worked and was utterly
frustrating for me when things didn't work and I don't know why or
even where to start looking. I ended up dropping right back to CLI for
most things.

I know it's probably ass backward to most people. It's been said for
years that once Linux gets a userfriendly installation prog and GUI,
more people will use it. But unfortunately I realized it doesn't work
for me. I did more productive work on Slackware and Solaris than I
ever got out of working in X.

Even if it was more tedious like adding a new mail user required me to
make a new directory, crypt >> temp.txt, then copy/paste it into the
user file, then run some program to enter that into the mail DB and
then hup the mail daemon. But at least I know when something goes
wrong where it's likely to be. Now if I just enter a name and password
into a GUI interface click OK and it doesn't work. I have totally no
idea why or where to look.

I know there's the notion if you want to figure out how the car
(Linux) works, you start by driving one around. Then start poking a
little bit here and there under the hood, like learn to change the
oil, change the tyres, then maybe change the spoiler or something more
advanced. Slowly going down to the intimate details.

But to me, it's bewildering and hopeless because I'm totally lost at
whether I should change the oil first or the gas. Should I open up the
front, back, top or bottom first? If my car doesn't move, is it
because the gearbox's spoilt? the igniter's dead? out of gas? somebody
stole the wheels? where shouldI check first????

I need to start with just the engine, then realize I need a
shaft/axle. Then install one & find out, I need a gearbox, install one
and find out I need wheels etc until I get something that moves in a
straight line and realize I need a steering wheel and so on.

I guess being stupid, I'm unable to handle a complex item like Linux
without knowing how the basic blocks work individually and in relation
to each other.

So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly any
recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing version into
the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
19 answers Last reply
More about time year linux setup working
  1. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The little lost angel wrote:

    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly any
    > recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing version into
    > the bare essentials.


    http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
    --
    << http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >>
    Cynic, n.: One who looks through rose-colored glasses with a jaundiced eye.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:33:58 +0000, The little lost angel wrote:

    > It's the time of the year when I try to get Linux working again. (Did
    > Slackware, tried Redhat, tried Debian, managed to boot Mandrake, Suse
    > actually did something useful). Been trying since '98 or something.
    >
    > A bit of rant/background here, please skip right to the last paragraph
    > if you don't think understanding where I'm coming from would help in
    > making a recommendation.
    >
    > Looking back, I realized my main problem is I have no idea why they
    > worked and not knowing why simply breaks them for me. I look at it
    > bewildered and lost. There are thousands of files all over the place
    > and I have no idea which are useful and which aren't. It's as bad as
    > Windows was at first to me. And I hate being the typical girl whose
    > first thought when the PC don't work is to cry for help or scream
    > what's wrong with this stupid computer it doesn't work!
    >
    > Things have become so user friendly it's like my first experience when
    > using Windows from DOS. I have no idea how it worked and was utterly
    > frustrating for me when things didn't work and I don't know why or
    > even where to start looking. I ended up dropping right back to CLI for
    > most things.
    >
    > I know it's probably ass backward to most people. It's been said for
    > years that once Linux gets a userfriendly installation prog and GUI,
    > more people will use it. But unfortunately I realized it doesn't work
    > for me. I did more productive work on Slackware and Solaris than I
    > ever got out of working in X.
    >
    > Even if it was more tedious like adding a new mail user required me to
    > make a new directory, crypt >> temp.txt, then copy/paste it into the
    > user file, then run some program to enter that into the mail DB and
    > then hup the mail daemon. But at least I know when something goes
    > wrong where it's likely to be. Now if I just enter a name and password
    > into a GUI interface click OK and it doesn't work. I have totally no
    > idea why or where to look.
    >
    > I know there's the notion if you want to figure out how the car
    > (Linux) works, you start by driving one around. Then start poking a
    > little bit here and there under the hood, like learn to change the
    > oil, change the tyres, then maybe change the spoiler or something more
    > advanced. Slowly going down to the intimate details.
    >
    > But to me, it's bewildering and hopeless because I'm totally lost at
    > whether I should change the oil first or the gas. Should I open up the
    > front, back, top or bottom first? If my car doesn't move, is it
    > because the gearbox's spoilt? the igniter's dead? out of gas? somebody
    > stole the wheels? where shouldI check first????
    >
    > I need to start with just the engine, then realize I need a
    > shaft/axle. Then install one & find out, I need a gearbox, install one
    > and find out I need wheels etc until I get something that moves in a
    > straight line and realize I need a steering wheel and so on.
    >
    > I guess being stupid, I'm unable to handle a complex item like Linux
    > without knowing how the basic blocks work individually and in relation
    > to each other.
    >
    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly any
    > recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing version into
    > the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!

    Gentoo
    LFS (Linux From Scratch)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:33:58 GMT, The little lost angel wrote:

    > bewildered and lost. There are thousands of files all over the place
    > and I have no idea which are useful and which aren't.

    http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer/book/rute.html.gz
  4. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote
    :

    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly
    > any recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing
    > version into the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!

    stick to Suse, has lots of gui, but you can always go ctrl-alt-F2 and
    play the cli way + it has a huge commercial support for little people
    (not a corporate world like redhat)

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The little lost angel wrote:
    > I guess being stupid, I'm unable to handle a complex item like Linux
    > without knowing how the basic blocks work individually and in relation
    > to each other.
    >
    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path?

    Linux From Scratch: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
    Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org/

    --
    Markku Kolkka
    markku.kolkka@iki.fi
  6. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The little lost angel wrote:
    > It's the time of the year when I try to get Linux working again. (Did
    > Slackware, tried Redhat, tried Debian, managed to boot Mandrake, Suse
    > actually did something useful). Been trying since '98 or something.
    ----
    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly any
    > recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing version into
    > the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!
    >

    http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
  7. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    news:Xns95D05EFEF052RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
    > a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote
    > :
    >
    >> So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    >> allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly
    >> any recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing
    >> version into the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!
    >
    > stick to Suse, has lots of gui, but you can always go ctrl-alt-F2 and
    > play the cli way + it has a huge commercial support for little people
    > (not a corporate world like redhat)

    No. I highly recommend against SuSE, because their YaST setup tool for
    package installation and site configuration are amazingly bad and violate
    all of Eric Raymond's published suggestions for Linux GUI design, they broke
    grub-install by replacing it with bits and piece of YaST instead of leaving
    the grub author's tools alone, they did the same thing to BIND configuration
    tools, they think that putting symlinks in a chroot location to point back
    to the original directory is a good idea, etc., etc.

    Every major software package has to be extensively re-written to accomodate
    their amazingly fragile SuSEconfig tools that they hid in /etc/sysconfig.
    It's bad, bad, bad stuff, replicating all the major errors that RedHat used
    to do in Linuxconf and which they finally learned not to do.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    begin Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    >
    > "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95D05EFEF052RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
    >> a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote
    >> :
    >>
    >>> So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    >>> allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly
    >>> any recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing
    >>> version into the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!
    >>
    >> stick to Suse, has lots of gui, but you can always go ctrl-alt-F2 and
    >> play the cli way + it has a huge commercial support for little people
    >> (not a corporate world like redhat)
    >
    > No. I highly recommend against SuSE, because their YaST setup tool for
    > package installation and site configuration are amazingly bad and violate
    > all of Eric Raymond's published suggestions for Linux GUI design, they
    > broke grub-install by replacing it with bits and piece of YaST instead of
    > leaving the grub author's tools alone, they did the same thing to BIND
    > configuration tools, they think that putting symlinks in a chroot location
    > to point back to the original directory is a good idea, etc., etc.
    >

    What are you blubbering abpout? Too much booze these last days? Constantly
    on crack or what?

    > Every major software package has to be extensively re-written to
    > accomodate their amazingly fragile SuSEconfig tools that they hid in
    > /etc/sysconfig. It's bad, bad, bad stuff, replicating all the major errors
    > that RedHat used to do in Linuxconf and which they finally learned not to
    > do.

    Idiot
    --
    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Jon Wilson <jsw@fnal.gov> wrote :


    > http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html

    now that is a good read, gave me the knowledge to do lfs and now
    embedded stuff

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In alt.os.linux Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net>:

    > "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95D05EFEF052RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
    >> a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote
    >> :
    >>
    >>> So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    >>> allow me to take such a learning path? Would appreciate greatly
    >>> any recommendations, or even an easy way to strip an existing
    >>> version into the bare essentials. Thanks!!!!
    >>
    >> stick to Suse, has lots of gui, but you can always go ctrl-alt-F2 and
    >> play the cli way + it has a huge commercial support for little people
    >> (not a corporate world like redhat)

    > No. I highly recommend against SuSE, because their YaST setup tool for
    > package installation and site configuration are amazingly bad and violate
    > all of Eric Raymond's published suggestions for Linux GUI design, they broke
    > grub-install by replacing it with bits and piece of YaST instead of leaving
    > the grub author's tools alone, they did the same thing to BIND configuration
    > tools, they think that putting symlinks in a chroot location to point back
    > to the original directory is a good idea, etc., etc.

    > Every major software package has to be extensively re-written to accomodate
    > their amazingly fragile SuSEconfig tools that they hid in /etc/sysconfig.
    > It's bad, bad, bad stuff, replicating all the major errors that RedHat used
    > to do in Linuxconf and which they finally learned not to do.

    You can switch off suseconfig somewhere in /etc/sysconfig
    completely and simply don't touch yast, then it's usable.

    IIRC /etc/sysconfig is FHS, but then I agree, does the OP want to
    learn how to use yast and limit himself to this distro or gain
    knowledge about Linux?

    For an older/slower system I'd suggest trying out the latest
    Debian if you have an usable internet connection. Amazing fast
    and if someone wants a GUI package installer, far ahead of
    anything I saw on other distro:

    apt-get install synaptic

    --
    Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
    mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
    #bofh excuse 55: Plumber mistook routing panel for decorative
    wall fixture
  11. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.os.linux (More info?)

    Thank you everybody for the various suggestions, I'll take some time
    to read through the LFS, Gentoo and the from power up to bash links.
    Probably will give all of them a try and see which works better for my
    personal learning handicap. Thanks again and Happy New Year to
    everybody :)

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  12. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In alt.os.linux The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
    ....
    > I know it's probably ass backward to most people. It's been said for
    > years that once Linux gets a userfriendly installation prog and GUI,
    > more people will use it. But unfortunately I realized it doesn't work
    > for me. I did more productive work on Slackware and Solaris than I
    > ever got out of working in X.

    I work like this, too. I do use X, but only for the sake of having
    several desktops for xterms and a web browser available at one time.
    But I'm not following your problem. What's wrong with Slackware?
    You're familiar with it -- it still exists. Use that.

    ....
    > But to me, it's bewildering and hopeless because I'm totally lost at
    > whether I should change the oil first or the gas. Should I open up the
    > front, back, top or bottom first?

    Start by compiling a new kernel. Then give some attention to the
    init scripts in /etc/rc.d/. Change /etc/DIRCOLORS to your liking.

    ....
    > So is there such a bare bone version of Linux available that would
    > allow me to take such a learning path?

    Most any distribution will do as a bootstrap. Once you have a working
    system, there's no need to be dependent on a specific distribution.
    You can decide what software you want, what kernel version to run,
    which gcc, libc. Take control.

    --
    Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:24:38 -0500 "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > stick to Suse, has lots of gui, but you can always go ctrl-alt-F2 and
    > > play the cli way + it has a huge commercial support for little people
    > > (not a corporate world like redhat)
    >
    > No. I highly recommend against SuSE, because their YaST setup tool for
    > package installation and site configuration are amazingly bad and violate
    > all of Eric Raymond's published suggestions for Linux GUI design, they broke
    > grub-install by replacing it with bits and piece of YaST instead of leaving
    > the grub author's tools alone, they did the same thing to BIND configuration
    > tools, they think that putting symlinks in a chroot location to point back
    > to the original directory is a good idea, etc., etc.

    Sounds to me that you are recommending that anyone who wants to use
    Linux should study "Eric Raymond's published suggestions" and "the
    grub author's tools".

    For myself, I am happy to "let YaST do it" -- that works fine for me.

    mikus
  14. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 31 Dec 2004 21:09:18 GMT, Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
    wrote:
    >I work like this, too. I do use X, but only for the sake of having
    >several desktops for xterms and a web browser available at one time.
    >But I'm not following your problem. What's wrong with Slackware?
    >You're familiar with it -- it still exists. Use that.

    My needs now are different from then. Back then, I think the kernel
    was at 1.2 or something. I only needed a PPTP internet connection, a
    working IRC client, FTP, telnet, joe and C compiler for my bit role
    as a MUD coder. It was easy to identify what didn't work and what I
    needed, when something broke, it was easy to zoom down on the exact
    thing.

    Now, there are so many things I need in order to work (X/Browser,
    news/mail, office suite, compiler, apacher, ftp, mysql, graphics
    editor, USB devices, RAID, firewall etc). But I no longer can figure
    out which broke what at where and when with the current distributions.
    They are now as bad as Windows as far as I'm concerned.

    I probably could get it to work via brute force
    reformat/reinstall/repeatedly trying various click and ticks
    combination and say yes to the numerous "you need this too,
    download/install?" questions in Debian.

    Or compromise like using VESA when nVidia drivers just refuse to
    compile on my attempt at FreeBSD. At the end of the day, I wouldn't
    know why exactly, what went wrong/right or how to fix it the next time
    except repeat those steps like a drone & pray it works. Exactly the
    same way people reboot their Windows machine and pray the problem goes
    away.

    Basically I feel relegated to a position where I have no understanding
    or control over my own PC. I get a mental block when I don't know why
    or what for. Same thing goes for school subjects, i flunk all those
    that I couldn't see a why-do-I-need-this-and-what-I-am-doing-this-for
    link.

    I can deal with I don't have most of the things I need and must learn
    to install them. But my meagre brain is limited, I can't deal with I
    have everything I need and more, but have to figure out which one is
    which and why half of them don't work the way I expect or want them
    to.

    Anyway so far Gentoo looks good. The basic thing looks like it's only
    a few tens of MB to work, which probably means nothing extrafluous to
    confuse my little brain with. The philosophy sounds really like my cup
    of tea. The community on IRC sounds friendly and active. They also
    appear to have support for most of the crucial things I would need for
    day to day usage. Plus, their documentation actually explains the
    essence of lots of basic things in clear language that others tend to
    assume you already know! :P

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  15. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In alt.os.linux The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
    ....
    > Now, there are so many things I need in order to work (X/Browser,
    > news/mail, office suite, compiler, apacher, ftp, mysql, graphics
    > editor, USB devices, RAID, firewall etc). But I no longer can figure
    > out which broke what at where and when with the current distributions.

    Then don't use a distribution. Take advantage of the fact that Linux
    is open source. Get source code. Read install docs. Look at the
    output of ./configure. Run test suites. Ask for debugging output.
    Examine log files.

    > They are now as bad as Windows as far as I'm concerned. ...

    If you depend on distributions to configure and install everything
    for you, and never work with source code yourself, in a sense, maybe
    that's true. But you're behaving like a Windows user, and whose
    fault is that?

    --
    Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
  16. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> wrote:

    >In alt.os.linux The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
    >
    >> They are now as bad as Windows as far as I'm concerned. ...
    >
    >If you depend on distributions to configure and install everything
    >for you, and never work with source code yourself, in a sense, maybe
    >that's true. But you're behaving like a Windows user, and whose
    >fault is that?

    Distributions seem to cause a lot of trouble for inexperienced users
    (not necessarily the problem here). We used to get a lot of problems
    from visitors to our LUG that installed an old distro out of a book
    (or equally old) then wonder why downloaded packages failed
    installation due to dependancy issues. This was usually used as an
    argument why Linux will never "be mainstream"!

    I tend not to perform upgrades unless there is something I need in it
    .... so my distro is out of date VERY quickly. I am an old Slack user
    and I always grab the source package and compile for my configuration
    but this is not typically something that inexperienced users want to
    attempt.

    Your response points this issue out very directly but I just thought
    I'd post a comment to clarify it ... from my point-of-view anyway.

    Happy New Years!
    --
    ------------------------------------------------
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
    SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
    ------------------------------------------------
  17. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 1 Jan 2005 11:35:09 GMT, Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> wrote:

    >If you depend on distributions to configure and install everything
    >for you, and never work with source code yourself, in a sense, maybe
    >that's true. But you're behaving like a Windows user, and whose
    >fault is that?

    Which is why I was asking for the bare minimum. I don't have a C
    compiler to do everything from source, so at the very minimum I needed
    something that will boot, network access and have a compiler already
    in. After that, I plan to be configuring, compiling and installing the
    most of what I need manually instead of using whatever package tool it
    has so that I can get a better grasp of what's going on.

    Though I don't think I'm behaving like a Windows user, or I'll just
    live with Suse/Mandrake and not think too hard about what's going on
    and why things don't quite happen the way it's supposed to be.

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  18. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
    message news:41d6b2f9.25728984@news.singnet.com.sg...
    > On 1 Jan 2005 11:35:09 GMT, Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> wrote:
    >
    >>If you depend on distributions to configure and install everything
    >>for you, and never work with source code yourself, in a sense, maybe
    >>that's true. But you're behaving like a Windows user, and whose
    >>fault is that?
    >
    > Which is why I was asking for the bare minimum. I don't have a C
    > compiler to do everything from source, so at the very minimum I needed
    > something that will boot, network access and have a compiler already
    > in. After that, I plan to be configuring, compiling and installing the
    > most of what I need manually instead of using whatever package tool it
    > has so that I can get a better grasp of what's going on.
    >
    > Though I don't think I'm behaving like a Windows user, or I'll just
    > live with Suse/Mandrake and not think too hard about what's going on
    > and why things don't quite happen the way it's supposed to be.

    You're not acting like that. If you want to work with minimal systems,
    compiled yourself, I'd suggest Gentoo. For sensible package management and
    the list of things you need to operate auto provided, I'd suggest starting
    with a minimal install of Debian with apt for package management, or any
    RedHat release that uses Yum or has it available.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    >> Which is why I was asking for the bare minimum. I don't have a C
    >> compiler to do everything from source, so at the very minimum I needed
    >> something that will boot, network access and have a compiler already
    >> in. After that, I plan to be configuring, compiling and installing the
    >> most of what I need manually instead of using whatever package tool it
    >> has so that I can get a better grasp of what's going on.
    >>
    >> Though I don't think I'm behaving like a Windows user, or I'll just
    >> live with Suse/Mandrake and not think too hard about what's going on
    >> and why things don't quite happen the way it's supposed to be.
    >
    > You're not acting like that. If you want to work with minimal systems,
    > compiled yourself, I'd suggest Gentoo. For sensible package management and
    > the list of things you need to operate auto provided, I'd suggest starting
    > with a minimal install of Debian with apt for package management, or any
    > RedHat release that uses Yum or has it available.

    And if you want a very verbose barebones Debian installation guide:

    osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2016

    Might be getting outdated, but still useful.

    --
    OS squared: open software times open standards.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Linux