Re: Why minix for root.bin?

To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Why minix for root.bin?
From: Hartmut Koptein <koptein@et-inf.fho-emden.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:55:29 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 19990406115529.I24507@isis>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19990406092649.F31264@molec3.dfis.ull.es>; from Enrique Zanardi on Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 09:26:49AM +0100
References: <[🔎] E10UMC0-00073G-00@pfaffben.user.msu.edu> <[🔎] oaemlyjnot.fsf@arroz.fake> <[🔎] 19990406092649.F31264@molec3.dfis.ull.es>

> Another idea that returns from the old ages: has anyone tried using
> "read-only fs"?

You mean iso9660 ?

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why minix for root.bin?
  - From: Nils Rennebarth <nils@ipe.uni-stuttgart.de>

References:
- Why minix for root.bin?
  - From: pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu (Ben Pfaff)
- Re: Why minix for root.bin?
  - From: Adam Di Carlo <aph@debian.org>
- Re: Why minix for root.bin?
  - From: Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es>

Prev by Date: Re: Why minix for root.bin?
Next by Date: Re: Why minix for root.bin?
Previous by thread: Re: Why minix for root.bin?
Next by thread: Re: Why minix for root.bin?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread