Re: Potatoe - usable ?
On Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 15:40:09 +0000, Christian Lavoie wrote:
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 19990526.15400900@debian.ylavoie.com>
> X-UIDL: 042baf373091adefce6011895aef58a8
> > > So what the consensus of opinion, is potatoe usable at the moment ?
I have found potato to be quite usable.
> Potato, as compared to slink, is 2.2.x based, and some packages had to
> be changed accordingly. I'd think that once changed, those package
> break 2.0.x 'compliance' in some way. (Though maybe not making it
> completely unusable)
I run potato on multiple 2.0.36 machines, and on zero 2.2.x machines, and
have had no kernel-related problems. I don't see the "2.2.x based" aspect
that you refer to. It *is* glibc2.1-based, yes, but that isn't the kernel.
I note on the lists that 2.2.x does require some changes that interfere
with backward compatibility, such as printcap changes due to different
device naming, but this applies to {hamm|slink|whatever} users as well.
BTW, I first-time-installed a printer, etc., on a potato/2.0.36 box
without incident.
> (apache-ssl still won't start, don't ask why, I don't have time to
> investigate anyway =P )
Apache-ssl works here, but NS won't interact well with it, due to keys
or similar. (I also haven't had time to look into it.) Lynx-ssl works
fine with it, so far.
> but I still can praise linux for its stability over windows ;) >
I can't. (No basis for comparison. :) )
--
PGP Public Key available on request:
Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID
pub 1024/CFED2D11 1998/03/05 Lazarus Long <lazarus@frontiernet.net>
Key fingerprint = 98 2A 56 34 16 76 D5 21 39 93 99 EA 89 D4 B5 A2
Reply to: