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

Re: vanilla as default or not

On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 21:37, Adam Di Carlo wrote:

> Phil's argument that we consider the "vanilla" image default and so
> should debian-cd is foolish IMHO.

Well, it was more along the lines that "IF we consider vannalla default,
then etc.", but since it's emerged that we don't, I'm completely OK with
that, except perhaps that we need to do something about making sure that
people grabbing the floppies could probably do with some hint that the
stuff in the top directory might not be the best choice,

Not that it will help most people --- If I'd not been part of this
conversation, then I doubt I'd be reading the READMEs to see which my
best bet was, I'd just grab the ones in .../current

> We can do whatever, including keeping it as is, but it will just suck
> continuing to answer all the FAQs and close all the bugs caused by
> users booting with the vanilla set.

Well, I'm certainly persuaded that the best bet is going to be an
isolinux based CD, with idepci as the default, and vanilla, compat and
bf24 available as alternatives.  It saves space on the CD, works better
than multiboot, and on the few BIOSs that are rumoured not to deal with
ISOLINUX, people can always write a floppy or two, or boot off another

Cheers, Phil.
Say no to software patents!  http://petition.eurolinux.org/

|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: