From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 19:13:17 EST Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #337 Linux-Misc Digest #337, Volume #1 Wed, 24 Nov 93 19:13:17 EST Contents: install kernel (Thomas Kwan Nang Kon) slackware / ALPHA scsi installation problem (CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de) Re: future of SLS (vs Slackware) (Don Holzworth) Re: future of SLS (vs Slackware) (yuan tzeng) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nkkwan@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Thomas Kwan Nang Kon) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: install kernel Date: 24 Nov 93 17:28:00 GMT Hi, I am trying to install kernel 0.99.13, and I got "unknown device" when I did "make dep". Then, I looked at loop.c and sdpcd.c. Their MAJOR_NR numbers (14 and 25) are not included in blk.h. Another problem I had is about df and free command, I am not able to use them. I looked /proc directory and found it empty. How can I generate or copy the necessary files?? Thanks nkkwan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------ From: CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de Subject: slackware / ALPHA scsi installation problem Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 08:05:00 CET hello, i have a problem installing the aktual slackware distribution on my scsi-disk. this is because my scsi-controler isn't recognized by the boot-disk ( i have a adaptec ah152x compatible controler). i need to have a bootdisk WITH AHA152X support. i know there is a patch for this controler that works (and i have this patch), but how can i replace the boot-image on the boot disk with a new kernel? tschuess carsten ## CrossPoint v2.92 R ## ------------------------------ From: donh@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Don Holzworth) Subject: Re: future of SLS (vs Slackware) Date: 24 Nov 1993 18:52:36 GMT Reply-To: donh@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Don Holzworth) In article <754156702.AA06288@blkcat.UUCP>, Joe.Klemmer@f370.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Klemmer) writes: |> Kenneth Topp wrote in a message to All: |> |> KT> I'm not interested in another battle, but I think that |> KT> something should be decided on. Should linux officially (in |> KT> terms of how LDP and general support suggests for beginners |> KT> and such) back SLS or Slackware. It is generally accepted |> KT> that Slackware is better. SLS seems to be suggested for |> KT> novices and as the standard but doesn't seem to be backed by |> KT> a team that responds to users comments and comes out with |> KT> new versions fixing bugs and such. |> |> The TAMU release is far better than either off them and is much simpler, why |> isn't it the "standard"? It's got everyting, is maintained very well and it far |> outreaches the others in it lack of a need for hacking/tweeking to get it to |> run. |> I've used and like both TAMU releases. However, it doesn't have "everything". For instance, it doesn't have cpio. I have some cpio diskettes, and I need cpio. Slackware does have cpio. TAMU does a very good job of providing the errata info needed. However, slackware is more up to date than either SLS or TAMU. Also, slackware lets me choose if I want to include the X development environment or just X or neither (about 20 meg for X, 30 more meg for X development). TAMU doesn't. If I didn't have slackware, I'd choose TAMU. Since I do have slackware, I'll choose it. Maybe when something else comes along, I'll choose it. I don't see any need for "official" distributions. I would like to see more documentation on the other releases, but I haven't read the distribution HOWTO, since I only got it yesterday. Maybe it has the info about the others. Regards, ============================================================================== donh@travis.csd.harris.com | Don Holzworth All opinions are mine alone. | (305) 977-5563 | "I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation." ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: t90yuan@mp.cs.niu.edu (yuan tzeng) Subject: Re: future of SLS (vs Slackware) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 20:33:47 GMT In article <754156702.AA06288@blkcat.UUCP> Joe.Klemmer@f370.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Klemmer) writes: >Kenneth Topp wrote in a message to All: > >KT> I'm not interested in another battle, but I think that >KT> something should be decided on. Should linux officially (in >KT> terms of how LDP and general support suggests for beginners >KT> and such) back SLS or Slackware. It is generally accepted >KT> that Slackware is better. SLS seems to be suggested for >KT> novices and as the standard but doesn't seem to be backed by >KT> a team that responds to users comments and comes out with >KT> new versions fixing bugs and such. > >The TAMU release is far better than either off them and is much simpler, why >isn't it the "standard"? It's got everyting, is maintained very well and it far >outreaches the others in it lack of a need for hacking/tweeking to get it to >run. >Later, >Joe > When FSF starts shipping Linux to customers, you will not be suprised neither SLS nor Slackware will be the candidate. I know today is not April first :-) This rumor is reliable and coming very very soon. Just watch, don't debate. --yuan -- [Tzeng Ruey Yuan] --yuan ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is: Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via: Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites: nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux End of Linux-Misc Digest ******************************