[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Poor quality of Debian/m68k CD image..?

Hi again,
I guess I should give a small report about what really was my problem with
the "low quality" of the slink CD images.

Well, it turned out the the fault was not within the images, but within
my ftp client's attempt at "reget"ting files. My company's uplink seems
to die for a short time every now and then, causing the ftp command to
terminate. I had expected it to correctly continue getting a file when I
give it the reget command, but it seems some erraneous data was injected
into the stream - with the result being a completely unusable image.

So I re-got the 2 slink binary m68k CD images with wget -c, and everything
went fine - MD5sums are ok, I loopback-mounted the images and they looked
ok, I burnt them, they look ok, I used them to install slink on my trusty
A3000 and it went very smooth, and I showed off Debian/m68k with this
installation at the german Linuxtag during the last weekend with almost
no problems (one still being the keymap under X11 - even when using the XKB
files someone once prepared, I still didn't get all the keys I wanted).

There was a fair amount of interest in Debian/m68k at the Linuxtag - like
how stable/fast it runs, where to get it etc, whether it runs on certain
smaller configurations etc. I really enjoyed that very much, and the total
number of visitors to the Linuxtag was estimated to be around 7000 -
compare that to about 1500 last year!

So, what was I going to say? Right, the CD images are just fine, I excuse
for maybe having caused irritations, keep up the good work!

> :-) Glad you thought of the checksums. I was going to suggest Roman puts a
> md5sums file next to the CD images in Erlangen (that mail never made it
> off my PC thanks to the crappy PPP service here). 

The MD5SUMS file for the 2.0_r1 images is there since March 7, so I guess
it was always there and I was just too stupid to get it.


PS: A nice figure from the Linuxtag: My 68030@25MHz, having 16MB of RAM,
running X in 1024x768@8bpp, takes 5minutes 11 seconds to fire up Gimp.
Good for a couple of laughs. :-}
It's not really anything I'd call usably fast, but it is _possible_
to use it, and that's what counts.

Reply to: