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

Re: Still no base tarball

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:

> Ah, ok.  I thought you, like Dale, were arguing for the 24 MB tarball
> on the CD-ROM.  It turns out that you, like Dale, are actually arguing
> for the presence of the floppy images on the CD-ROM :)
> The big problem with this thread is that many of us thought Dale
> wanted the tarball when he actually wanted the floppy images.
All I've ever asked for was a path by which floppies could be used to
install on non-CD, non-net machines.

In the past there has been no functional difference between floppy images
and the tarball (the floppies were just a split tarball). I was not until
Ethan declared the differences under the current situation that I could
even see any difference between them.

Even after Ethan's information, I see either format as making it possible
to do a floppy install of base. The floppy images are easier to use in MS$
environments, so they seem to be the obvious choice.

I point out that, in the past, both the floppy images and the tarball were
provided in disks-<arch> and no one complained about the duplication of 10
meg. That doesn't mean that I don't understand concerns about bloat, nor
does it mean that I am in favor of such bloat.

"Give me floppies... that's what I want..." <sung to the tune of the
Beatles song "Give me money...">

Sorry that this simple solution was so hard to pull together...


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-                                                                    _-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769     _-
_-       Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road          _-
_-       e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308        _-
_-                                                                    _-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
              available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/

Reply to: