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

Re: Rant about installer features (Re: Progeny)

On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 20:32 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 05:53:21PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 00:06 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> > > Knoppix, Gnoppix, Progeny ....
> > 
> > So, then Carl... you base all of your Servers on HUGE-MON-GOLLY-GOUS
> > package lists?
> Non sequitur.  If I liked, say, Knoppix more than Debian I'd use Knoppix,
> not Debian.  I just think the hardware detection on the installer is better.

Oh, yes, it was indeed non-sequitor. I wanted to make sure you hadn;t
lost sight of the original.

As far as Knoppix. I use it for hardware detection and to make sure
machine are able to handle it proper, for those odd pieces that aren't
quite able to be used by linux yet... or never will be (some Video cards
for instance... FB doesn't work either...)

It allows me to dress down a machine and do the work prior to installing
a perma-install.

I formerly used Knoppix as my chroot environment Debian installer for
Woody on newer (unsupported) hardware. But, since things are progressing
with d-i... I only use Knoppix for disater recovery for i386 based

d-i uses the exact same package Progeny does. Discover (1 and 2 I think)
seem to be very good, just that sometimes it does get confused. Both on
Progeny and on d-i.
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster:  Linux

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

Reply to: