 | | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) The text mode install isn't actually the old one; it just looks exactly like it. But it's still been rewritten from scratch in python, and just like the gui version is full of bugs. Maybe next version will be better. (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) No way. I TOTALLY missed that. Or ignored it, or something. Oh well, I got a machine at home I'm not using for anything (233/64mb - dead 5 gig drive but I've got a 6 gig spare) - I'll set it up and play with some stuff here at home. (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) Yeah, the new installer is broken -- they've TOTALLY screwed up the net-install. *sigh*. And with 6.0, they'd FINALLY gotten all the bugs out. But there is one small consolation -- you can still do the install in text mode by selecting that at (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) Me either. My two co-admins and I just sat there and barely contained our urge to vomit while we went through the installer. If I hadn't feared the 40 gig drive would give <6.1 fits I would have scrounged around for my 5.2 or 6.0 cds... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) *drool* (...) And again... (...) I've heard about that. I haven't heard of anyone who actually liked it. (...) I suppose that says something about IDE, large drives, and servers. (...) Probably not. (...) Stop it, you're making me jealous.. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Science Fiction (was Re: Transit Time to Mars)
|
|
(...) Top be a bit more precise, his email address is pterry@something (something.demon.co.uk, IIRC), he sometimes signs off with it IIRC, and it makes a nice convenient shorthand. ;) (...) It is? I think I've read Pyramids, but I didn't get that. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
|
(...) Hey, this reminded me of something I did last week. Short background: Bought a new 40 gig drive for my Linux box. Couldn't make it be seen properly even after a BIOS update and even after numerous other things (edited lilo.conf with the CHS (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Depreciated is what I think you meant, but I looked it up at the w3c, and it's actually not. (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Science Fiction (was Re: Transit Time to Mars)
|
|
(...) Oops! Well, it's obviously derived from Pyramids--that's what I was erroneously referring to. My mistake. I wasn't aware that he'd chosen it. Anyway, the rest of my post still stands! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Maybe "obsolescent" was the wrong term. I think I meant depreciated...but I'm not sure if that's right either. (...) I agree. I still use IMG because it's easy and it works on almost all browsers. However, I believe that I read that you are (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
