Re: Module /usr/src/modules/bcm4400 failed (ahh no network)
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 10:08:49PM -0700, wex wrote:
> Actually the very first thing I did was download the new sarge 2 weeks
> ago, and I did so with excitement and high expectations. And I will say
> this for other people's benefit it is definitely a beta installer.
Yup.
> It gave me a various range of problems that I won't go into; plus; it
> seems as though it actually gave me less autonomy although there was
> an expert mode I did not use. In particular the bootloader process
> was f$cked
In what way was it broken? There were some errata in beta3, should be
fixed in beta4.
> I don't know what the exact intent was in re-doing the installer and i
> am sure there is an important underlying reason,
It had become impossible to maintain or significantly extend the old
one, and the old installer was built in such a way as to discourage all
but the most dedicated developers.
> but it is unfortunate that it makes the already hardest distribution
> to install harder.
We've in fact had many reports saying "this is much easier than the
woody installer". Of course there are bugs, not helped by trying to
track a distribution in development, but they're generally stomped on
pretty quickly.
> By the way what I don't understand is why sarge isn't coming with an
> option to load the 2.6 kernel, who really wants the 2.4 kernel at this
> point?
Quite a few people, actually. However, 2.6 support has been added
recently; it's still raw, but sarge should release with a 2.6 option at
least on i386, maybe powerpc as well.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: