On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:45:45PM +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > > Just like Eli, you are describing the creation of "mini" distro (with its > "mini" installer). I think any one of us is capable of doing this. However, > this is not a 5 minutes job -- you need to debug this thoroughly (you don't > want to have a high chance of screwing every 3'rd computer).
I don't see how I can screw any computer. My suggestion, not counting unrelated Linux bugs, consists of no changes to the instalee's machine except of putting there a few files and changing boot.ini. > > This is a total waste of time, since these procedures would have to be > repeated almost every insta-party (since distros and installation tools > evolve very fast -- about twice a year, which is the frequency of > insta-parties). > Of course you have a point here, but 1. I am not sure the second and third times will take as long as the first. 2. If many people use it, e.g. hundreds of instalees per version on around ten different parties, it's still worth it. 3. More people can participate in the preperation. 4. I can do the preperation whenever I want. At home, at night, weekend, even at work (if my boss says so). The time of the instaparty, OTOH, is much more expensive. > I want to state again: The only effective way for having "customised" install > is to follow a major distro install and then install extra packages as > "post-install". Any hacks done during install will have to be redsigned, > re-applied, re-debugged every insta-party! That's the way I did all (3? 4?) parties here (since I arrived). And now I want to try something different. Are you talking from experience? Did you try both ways and are convinced about which is the right one? Or do you simply say what you think (which is of course perfectly ok)? In the last parties, BTW, we prepared yet another CD with a ready-made /usr/local with all the stuff we have here. Even faster than RPM, and still slower than if they copy it at home. > > You are right about the time it takes to defrag/partition/prepare the > installee machine. However, we do want to *install* linux for him and not > just hand him Knoppix (which would be excelent solution for the people who > [yet] do not want to install Linux), or as you suggested, provide him with a > "magic" file containing throw-away Linux. Well, here I have to differ. I do not want to install Linux for him. All I want is to let him try it, and do his homework. I do not think there is something magical about *the installation*, and I personally find the RedHat jokes/ads during the install boring. Knoppix is cool, and if it had an option to uncompress itself to the disk, so that the user can apt-get what he wants, it would be great. I guess there is even a possibility that knoppix will have it soon, thus doing exactly what I suggested. I simply don't follow it close enough to know. Even as is, I tend to recommend it to students, and only have Linux installed if they really intend to play with it. People that will want to have "real" Linux will have the option to learn it beforehand, then make up their minds. I think that a pefcect install+conf+tuning takes several hours at least per machine. It's simply not possible to do that, with a ratio of 1 to 10 between installers and machines, and since I would by far prefer to install at least something on every machine, the average installation is much less than perfect. I never configured non-vital hardware (modem, printer, scanner, etc.), except for those that stayed until the end, and I often config X less than perfectly. I also told many students with laptops to come another day for extra confs. I do not think that with my ideas everything will be perfect, but I will at least have more time for that, and not waste it on waiting for defrag and the CDs. One more thing (about the "throw-away") - I have known enough people that had Linux installed on a real, space-taking partition, booted it a few times, then forgot about it for a year (even years). Sometimes, after a few months/years, they decide to delete the Linux partition, only to face "LI" at the next reboot, and come whining to me. Of course I think that for their own good, they should use it more, and eventually remove Windows (or at least have the option). I simply do not think I should force them to. On the contrary - I think that the fact that Linux is so versatile, can be both a heavy-use server and a "throw-away", is its biggest strength, and the installees should understand and appreciate it. -- Didi > > Bye, > > -- > Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron > > "Microsoft: We make virii work!" ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
