Re: Module /usr/src/modules/bcm4400 failed (ahh no network)
Hey thanks for the replies, I was rather frustrated last night whne i
wrote this. I guess the real thing to do is to get more involved in the
debian process, i just haven't done much coding of this type. Some more
responses included...
> 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.
Well lilo didn't work at all, sometimes i would choose lilo and it would
just go back to the main menu other times it would start installing grub.
Although grub appeared like it was working I couln't get it to work and it
was crypic asking for locations like /target/disk1/lun/ or something like
that which i was able to decript by going to a shell and doing a df. It
should give you a choice of mount points that you already created or clean
devices like /dev/hda. Then I couldn't get it to work anyways. Realize i
didn't once try to load the boot loader to the MBR, so that may have
worked. Sometimes in fact it did load it to the mbr when I didn't ask it
to. I don't know which version I was using but it was a about 2 1/2 weeks
ago.
By the way Katipo when I first posted something about this installer a
couple weeks ago I was told that the bug report already exists, although I
think it was pigeon holing the problem a bit.
>
>> 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.
Well that makes sense. I know debian is really focusing on a system
independant installer and that may be a bug force in where this
installation development is going, but one thing that I have heard other
talk about and which I don't understand is why debian couldn't inherit a
code base from an existing successful installer and build on it rather
than starting from scratch. Maybe the long term road map they have for
the installer is the best choice, but I think using some other existing
tools would be a good idea. In my opinion the big problem holding back
linux is that the development is so branched. We have 1 million
distributions, 22 installers, 10 package managers, etc etc. Having many
distributions is great - it provides choice, but I think merging some of
the other systems would be a great move for long term linux success. The
main reason I use debian is their package management system. Redhat
certainly has a much nicer install process, but anyone that has used
redhat on a bunch of systems and then tries apt will realize how weak the
rpm system is in comparison. And I like how the init system is setup in
debian. The point is that if the linux community would collaborate a bit
more we would start gaining ground in leaps and bounds instead of
grappling for every step. We need to quit re-creating the wheel.
>
>> 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.
>
Yeah I am just refering to the bugs. And you are right lots of people
still want the 2.4 kernel in fact i am still using it for servers. But if
that is the case why doesn't debian just whip out a quick distribution
with an updated 2.4 kernel using woody and focus sarge on 2.6. I would
think they could set a supplemental woody up with the 2.4.25 kernel with
ease.
>> 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]
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: