On 10/8/2016 12:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Richard Owlett composed on 2016-10-08 10:47 (UTC-0500):
...today, while chasing down an intermittent problem, I
needed to know which point release was active...
cat /etc/debian_version
I never had need of "cat" before.
Exploring /etc was educational
Richard Owlett composed on 2016-10-08 10:47 (UTC-0500):
...today, while chasing down an intermittent problem, I
needed to know which point release was active...
cat /etc/debian_version
...and which physical device contained the OS...
(as Ben Finney already answered)
mount | grep 'on / '
--
Richard Owlett writes:
> However today, while chasing down an intermittent problem, I needed to
> know which point release was active and which physical device
> contained the OS. Usually I have gparted installed and can determine
> the active device by the "locked" symbol.
The question “which p
I have a laptop set aside for experimenting with configuration
options.
I currently have 2 instances each of Squeeze(Gnome DE) and
Jessie(Mate DE).
My current practice has been during install to give meaningful
names to the machine.
I.E. when using terminal the prompt may be "richard@min-squeeze
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:16:58PM -0500, Daniel wrote:
> hello
>
> Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
If in doubt, use a "multi-arch" CD from
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:52:44 +0100
> From: berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
> To:
> Subject: Re: which version of debian to download
> Message-ID: <420ee2b7cf1c65846e4c8d575f2f8...@neutralite.org>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929
>
Le 18.12.2012 22:16, Ralf Mardorf a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 21:52 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
wrote:
I might be wrong on some points, because I am not an expert
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s05.html.en
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch03s04.html.en
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 20:52:44 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> When I speak about i386 being old, I should say very old, because
> between i386 and x86_64, there has been at least 3 generations: i486,
> i586, i686.
You use the i386 for itself and for all 3 of those - the installation
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 21:52 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> I might be wrong on some points, because I am not an expert
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s05.html.en
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch03s04.html.en
Table 3.2. Recommended Minimum System Require
As long as you have >= 2 GB RAM you should download AMD64 (otherwise
i386)
The choice is not related to the amount of RAM, but on processor's
architecture and instructions set.
Nowadays, all processors I know for computers are built with 64 bits
architectures, and corresponding instructions
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 20:04 +, darkestkhan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel wrote:
> > Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
> As long as you have >= 2 GB RAM you should download AMD64 (otherwise i386)
For Linux, but for the
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 14:16 -0500, Daniel wrote:
> Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
For Linux it's amd64 and if you should prefer 32-bit on a 64-bit
machine, you can also use i386.
http://www.debian.org/ports/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
Hello Daniel,
Daniel wrote:
> Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
You probably want the amd64 version.
Best,
Claudius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 20:04:37 darkestkhan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel wrote:
> > hello
> >
> > Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Daniel
>
> As lon
Am 18.12.2012 20:16, schrieb Daniel:
hello
Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
Thank you
Danie
What did you mean with version?
distribution or 32/64 bit?
your precessor has 64 bit architekture. You could use it.
distribution:
squeeze or wheezy
--
To
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel wrote:
> hello
>
> Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Daniel
>
As long as you have >= 2 GB RAM you should download AMD64 (othe
hello
Which version of debian is compatable with i3 or i5 processors systems ?
Thank you
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50d
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 23:51:48 s. keeling wrote:
> Jerome BENOIT :
> > On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
What's the of an answer out of topic so late?
Thierry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
/6.0.0/powerpc/iso-dvd/>
> > * sparc <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/sparc/iso-dvd/>
> > * s390 <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/s390/iso-dvd/>
> > * source <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/source/iso-dvd/>
> > * multi-ar
Bret Busby put forth on 2/9/2011 11:32 AM:
> If my memory is correct, for a computer to include 8GB of RAM, that is
> addressable by the CPU, the CPU would necessarily be a 64 bit CPU, to be able
> to
> address that much RAM.
32 bit Intel and AMD CPUs have been capable of addressing up to 64GB o
On Vi, 11 feb 11, 19:17:02, Klistvud wrote:
>
> Well, probably the simplest ("newbie") method would be to download
> both versions (i386 and amd64) of Debian. Then, pop in the 64-bit
> CD.
> 1) If it runs, you own a 64-bit system.
> 2) If it doesn't, it will explicitly inform you about the wrong
>
Dne, 10. 02. 2011 07:22:32 je Bob Proulx napisal(a):
You are making it too difficult. I can't think of any 64-bit capable
cpus that are not 64-bit capable. Really! :-)
The normal question is how can you tell from a 32-bit system, such as
a live cd boot or some such, whether the system is 64-
Camaleón a écrit :
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:39:37 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
If my memory is correct, for a computer to include 8GB of RAM, that is
addressable by the CPU, the CPU would necessarily be a 64 bit CPU, to
be able to address that much RAM.
>> No, this is wrong.
>
>
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:58:56 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>>> But, apparently, not all 64 bit CPU's are compatible with the 64 bit
>>> version of Debian Linux, as (from what I understand) the 64 bit
>>> version of Debian Linux is only compatible with a sma
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:39:37 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Camaleón a écrit :
>>> If my memory is correct, for a computer to include 8GB of RAM, that is
>>> addressable by the CPU, the CPU would necessarily be a 64 bit CPU, to
>>> be able to address that much RAM.
>
> No, this is wrong.
No, h
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:11:37 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> Does that mean that, from
>
> "
> :~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
> cpu family: 15
> model : 44
> model name: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 2800+
> stepping : 2
> cpu MHz
On Jo, 10 feb 11, 18:11:37, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Bob Proulx wrote:
[snip lots of unrelated stuff]
[snip answer]
[snip question to answer above]
> "So once you do know what the question actually is,
> you'll know what the answer means."
Very apropiate...
[snip more signat
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Bob Proulx wrote:
Bret Busby wrote:
The web page at http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ states
The port consists of a kernel for all AMD 64bit CPUs with AMD64
extension and all Intel CPUs with EM64T extension, and a common
64bit userspace.
Thus, from the Debian official doc
Hello,
Camaleón a écrit :
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:32:09 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> The problem is in knowing whether a particular CPU is compatible with
>> the 64 bit version of the operating system, or whether it requires the
>> 32 bit version.
There are no single 32 and 64-bit versions. De
Bret Busby wrote:
> The web page at http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ states
> The port consists of a kernel for all AMD 64bit CPUs with AMD64
> extension and all Intel CPUs with EM64T extension, and a common
> 64bit userspace.
>
> Thus, from the Debian official documentation, it is made clear th
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Camaleón wrote:
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:36:26 + (UTC)
From: Camaleón
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: which version for intel chipset 64bit
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:37:01 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:32:09 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Camaleón wrote:
>> For someone who is going to install an OS, that's something that should
>> be found by the user itself. More than a mere "technical" decision
>> (both architectures -i386 and amd64- will work under 64-b
Bret Busby wrote:
>
> The problem is in knowing whether a particular CPU is compatible with
> the 64 bit version of the operating system, or whether it requires the
> 32 bit version.
>
> For example, the Pentium 4, from memory, is a 64 bit CPU, but is
> incompatible with the 64 bit version of De
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Camaleón wrote:
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:16:46 + (UTC)
From: Camaleón
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: which version for intel chipset 64bit
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:17:20 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:43:59 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> Could the Release Notes include a component that matches CPU model with
> appropriate distribution version?
(...)
For someone who is going to install an OS, that's something that should
be found by the user itself. More than a mere "techni
On Mi, 09 feb 11, 13:43:59, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> So, it would be useful for the Release Notes to include a list of
> CPU's, and show which is the appropriate version of the
> distribution, for each CPU model.
There are two problems I can think of with this approach:
- who is going to maintain t
Bret Busby put forth on 2/8/2011 11:43 PM:
>
> Could the Release Notes include a component that matches CPU model with
> appropriate distribution version?
>
> Many 64 bit CPU's exist, but it can be difficult to determine whether they
> should have the i386 (which no longer works with the i386, fr
Darac Marjal put forth on 2/8/2011 9:05 AM:
> IIRC, i386 should work fine whichever style of 64-bit it is. However,
> one of the reasons why Intel switched from IA64 to AMD64 was that IA64
> is terrible at executing 32-bit code.
You are woefully misinformed. First, IA64 Itanium is alive and well
Could the Release Notes include a component that matches CPU model with
appropriate distribution version?
Many 64 bit CPU's exist, but it can be difficult to determine whether
they should have the i386 (which no longer works with the i386, from the
Release Notes, and so should be renamed) or
On 08/02/11 16:12, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jerome BENOIT put forth on 2/8/2011 8:04 AM:
who does play with Itanium box ?
expert or newbie ?
Old Itanium boxen are often sold on Ebay very cheap, same with SPARC, etc, and
discarded by universities, etc. These are what some newbies play with. You
Camaleón put forth on 2/8/2011 8:20 AM:
> I'll give you a (virtual) beer if the OP has an Itanium box.
It's happened at least twice in two years on this list that an OP was told to
use AMD64 when he had an Itanium box, simply because the OP asked without
providing details, as in this case, and wa
Jerome BENOIT put forth on 2/8/2011 8:04 AM:
> who does play with Itanium box ?
> expert or newbie ?
Old Itanium boxen are often sold on Ebay very cheap, same with SPARC, etc, and
discarded by universities, etc. These are what some newbies play with. You
never know for sure if the OP doesn't sta
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 07:53:23AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Camaleón put forth on 2/8/2011 4:55 AM:
> > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:34:33 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
> >
> >>> which version for intel chi
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:53:23 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Camaleón put forth on 2/8/2011 4:55 AM:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:34:33 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
>>
>>>> which version for intel chipset 64bit?
who does play with Itanium box ?
expert or newbie ?
On 08/02/11 14:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Camaleón put forth on 2/8/2011 4:55 AM:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:34:33 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
which version for intel chipset 64bit?
(...)
amd64
Or
Camaleón put forth on 2/8/2011 4:55 AM:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:34:33 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
>
>>> which version for intel chipset 64bit?
>
> (...)
>
>> amd64
>
> Or i386, that's up to the
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:34:33 +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On 08/02/11 11:30, hamed hosseini wrote:
>> which version for intel chipset 64bit?
(...)
> amd64
Or i386, that's up to the user ;-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.d
ttp://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/powerpc/iso-dvd/>
>>* sparc <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/sparc/iso-dvd/>
>>* s390 <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/s390/iso-dvd/>
>>* source <http://cdimage.debian.org/debia
ge.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/s390/iso-dvd/>
* source <http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/source/iso-dvd/>
* multi-arch
<http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/multi-arch/iso-dvd/>
which version for intel chipset 64bit?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us
mage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/source/iso-dvd/>
- multi-arch<http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.0/multi-arch/iso-dvd/>
which version for intel chipset 64bit?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 04:17, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Bruno Costacurta writes:
>> I just ordered a laptop with following CPU and vendor specifications
>>
>> - CPU: Intel Double Cores 64bits (ULV SU4100)
>> - 2Mo cache
>> - UltraLowVoltage 10W 1.3Ghz
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:17:29 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> Shouldn't he be using ia64 port instead?
No, ia64 (Itanium) it's a pure 64 bits Intel architecture.
> In here[1], for ia64, it writes
> that
>
> First officially released with Debian 3.0. This is a port to Intel's
> first 64-bit ar
Hi,
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Bruno Costacurta writes:
> I just ordered a laptop with following CPU and vendor specifications
>
> - CPU: Intel Double Cores 64bits (ULV SU4100)
> - 2Mo cache
> - UltraLowVoltage 10W 1.3Ghz
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Amrit Panesar writes:
> The AMD64 dist. would probably be
On 6/26/2010 8:48 AM, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
Which version (I intend to use Squeeze) is the best recommendation ?
Thanks for your advice.
The AMD64 dist. would probably be the best for you
You can find the latest amd64 ISOs on the Debian Site.
http://www.debian.com/CD/http-ftp/
Thanks
Hello,
I just ordered a laptop with following CPU and vendor specifications
- CPU: Intel Double Cores 64bits (ULV SU4100)
- 2Mo cache
- UltraLowVoltage 10W 1.3Ghz
Which version (I intend to use Squeeze) is the best recommendation ?
Thanks for your advice.
Bye,
Bruno
--
Linux Counter #353844
would need to
know which version of debian lenny would be suitable.
Thank you
Please send the answer at ianmanifac...@yahoo.com
sorry,
Debian 5 Lenny x86/AMD64
The AMD64 version would not run on that processor, only the i386 one.
--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br
--
To
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Victor Padro wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Ian Manifacier wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I would like to install debian on an old computer with an AMD XP 1700+
>> processor, the architecture is QantiSpeed I think. For that
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Ian Manifacier wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to install debian on an old computer with an AMD XP 1700+
> processor, the architecture is QantiSpeed I think. For that I would need to
> know which version of debian lenny would be suitable.
> Thank yo
Hello,
I would like to install debian on an old computer
with an AMD XP 1700+ processor, the architecture is QantiSpeed I think. For
that
I would need to know which version of debian lenny would be
suitable.
Thank you
Please send the answer at ianmanifac...@yahoo.com
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:39:47AM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
> > or removed. The obvious case being m68k -- aka the orginal macs -- not
> > being in Etch. In the upcoming release cycle -- lenny, I'd love to see
> > m68k and other arch. still be here but they have an uphi
Kevin Mark wrote:
> or removed. The obvious case being m68k -- aka the orginal macs -- not
> being in Etch. In the upcoming release cycle -- lenny, I'd love to see
> m68k and other arch. still be here but they have an uphill battle no
> matter what distro you pick.
I don't really know, but past ex
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 20:08 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:53:16PM +0200, Justin Hartman wrote:
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > For sake of not repeating the same topics in this thread I will start
> > off by saying that I am also a recent convert to Debian Testing PPC
> > from Ubuntu 6
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:53:16PM +0200, Justin Hartman wrote:
> Hi Guys
>
> For sake of not repeating the same topics in this thread I will start
> off by saying that I am also a recent convert to Debian Testing PPC
> from Ubuntu 6.10. My primary motivation for moving to Debian was as a
> result
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 07:50:02PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Troy Bull wrote:
> > I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
> > noticed that is seems very old.
>
> NO, that's plainly not true. Stable sarge was released 1 1/2 years ago.
> That's not very o
ld be appreciated.
once you have installed debian, you should never have to reinstall
(unless you're going to DOWNgrade, or maybe on a mobo change). you may
freely, though not always easily, migrate you're way through the
various "flavors" of debian as you choose. And, you can d
Hi Guys
For sake of not repeating the same topics in this thread I will start
off by saying that I am also a recent convert to Debian Testing PPC
from Ubuntu 6.10. My primary motivation for moving to Debian was as a
result of a recent decision by Canonical to drop support for PPC as of
the end of
Troy Bull wrote:
> I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
> noticed that is seems very old.
NO, that's plainly not true. Stable sarge was released 1 1/2 years ago.
That's not very old. If you are comparing to other distros you should
compare the enterprise versi
Andrei Popescu writes:
> If you *really* need new software you can upgrade to testing (etch).
Or install backported packages from backports.org.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:54:30AM -0600, Troy Bull wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
> noticed that is seems
> very old. Am I needing to update or something to get current packages? I
> did apt-get upgrade
> and nothing was updat
Russell L. Harris wrote:
> You are running the "stable" release. Most people should be running
> the "testing" release of Debian, which currently is "Etch".
That "most people" is a bit loaded, but he's probably correct that you'd
be happier with Etch.
The way you'd upgrade to Etch, is like he say
* Troy Bull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061212 07:00]:
> Greetings
>
> I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
> noticed that is seems very old. Am I needing to update or something to
> get current packages? I did apt-get upgrade and nothing was updated..
>
> I notic
Hi Troy,
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 06:54 -0600, Troy Bull wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
> noticed that is seems very old. Am I needing to update or something to
> get current packages? I did apt-get upgrade and nothing was updated.
Greetings
I am totally new to debian. I recently downloaded and installed 3.1r4 I
noticed that is seems very old. Am I needing to update or something to
get current packages? I did apt-get upgrade and nothing was updated..
I noticed the kernel was 2.4 something, and open office was 1.1. T
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:01:08 -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> I have need of the latest version (version 49) of the "minitoc.sty"
> package for TeX. The version in Debian "testing" is version 40, which
> is dated December 2004, and does not work properly in my application.
>
> I have downloa
I have need of the latest version (version 49) of the "minitoc.sty"
package for TeX. The version in Debian "testing" is version 40, which
is dated December 2004, and does not work properly in my application.
I have downloaded the tetex-extra .deb package from the Debian "unstable"
archive, in ord
on in between
(2.3.2?). Which version of TwonkyVision should I therefore install,
glibc-2.2.5 or glibc-2.3.3?
Thanks,
--
Matthijs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Em Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:20:09 +0200, Anonymous escreveu:
> it safer to run
> the stable ssh (1:3.4p1-1.woody.3) or the unstable one (1:3.8.1p1-8)?
Stable is more mature, with unstable we never know what errors
may be yet lurking...
--
Leandro GuimarÃes Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 02:00:17PM +0200, Anonymous said
> I'm running an "unstable" system and I need remote access by
> ssh. "Stable" is considered better for servers (but I need
> unstable for newer versions of a lot of packages on my
> workstation), "testing" gets security updates last, but
> "
I'm running an "unstable" system and I need remote access by
ssh. "Stable" is considered better for servers (but I need
unstable for newer versions of a lot of packages on my
workstation), "testing" gets security updates last, but
"unstable" has a higher version number of ssh. it safer to
run the s
On Thu 16 September 2004 15:29, Mark D. Hansen wrote:
> Sorry for the dumb question, but how do I tell which version of gcc and
> glibc are installed on my current Debian configuration? Thanks, Mark
dpkg -l gcc libc6
Cheers,
Ray
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for the dumb question, but how do I tell which version of gcc and glibc are
installed on my current Debian configuration? Thanks, Mark
Kent West wrote:
Ethan Vos wrote:
Can I run this from a Win98 C: drive and install to a Linux D: or E:
drive?
The instructions seem a little daunting...
Ethan
Robert Sheets wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:19:59 -0400, Ethan Vos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good afternoon all.
The mirrors that I ha
Ethan Vos wrote:
Can I run this from a Win98 C: drive and install to a Linux D: or E:
drive?
The instructions seem a little daunting...
Ethan
Robert Sheets wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:19:59 -0400, Ethan Vos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good afternoon all.
The mirrors that I have looked at have
Can I run this from a Win98 C: drive and install to a Linux D: or E: drive?
The instructions seem a little daunting...
Ethan
Robert Sheets wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:19:59 -0400, Ethan Vos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good afternoon all.
The mirrors that I have looked at have binary-1 through bina
When I ordered Debian woody i686 CDROM's from a vendor listed on
Debian.org, I got a set of seven. The first one gave me a list of
kernels to try. I wound up using the 2.4 kernel. I am now running
Windows 98SE and Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 woody 2.4.18 on this Gateway 500.
Ethan Vos wrote:
Good a
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:19:59 -0400, Ethan Vos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon all.
>
> The mirrors that I have looked at have binary-1 through binary-7. Which
> is the correct one to use?
I would not recommend using the binary-X CD images unless the machine
you're installing onto d
Good afternoon all.
The mirrors that I have looked at have binary-1 through binary-7. Which
is the correct one to use?
Also, I am using a second HDD for the install. Will the CD ask which HDD
to use?
Will the install give me way to chose which OS to boot?
Thanks in advance for the help.
Dropout
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:47PM -0500, Lei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I know which version of GNOME I am using?
For me, it's always displayed on the splash screen, when Gnome starts.
Anyway, dpkg -l gnome-core or dpkg -l|grep gnome should give you a hint.
> and if I
-Original Message-
From: Lei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 8, 2004 6:31 PM
To: Debian-User Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How do I know which version of GNOME I am using?
How do I know which version of GNOME I am using?
(I used apt-get from ftp.us.debian.or
How do I know which version of GNOME I am using?
(I used apt-get from ftp.us.debian.org for stable version)
and if I am not using the 2.4 version, how do I get the latest version?
Lei
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:32:06PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> I'm re-installing Debian on a system.
>
> I tried this last month and ran into trouble with the video card (ATI Radeon
> All-In-Wonder). It turns out the version of X in the current stable branch
> does not support my card well. Th
Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried this last month and ran into trouble with the video card (ATI Radeon
> All-In-Wonder). It turns out the version of X in the current stable branch
> does not support my card well. The previous version supported it and 4.2
> supports it.
>
> So a
Hal Vaughan wrote:
>I'm re-installing Debian on a system.
>
>I tried this last month and ran into trouble with the video card (ATI Radeon
>All-In-Wonder). It turns out the version of X in the current stable branch
>does not support my card well. The previous version supported it and 4.2
>supp
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:32:06PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> So am I better off going into testing and getting X 4.2, or going backward to
> 3.x (I can't remember the exact number of the last 3.x version)?
Forward, especially if you play things like UT or Quake3, etc, which I
believe depend on
I'm re-installing Debian on a system.
I tried this last month and ran into trouble with the video card (ATI Radeon
All-In-Wonder). It turns out the version of X in the current stable branch
does not support my card well. The previous version supported it and 4.2
supports it.
So am I better o
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 04:09:48 -0800
Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since lame seems to be the best mp3 encoder and there's no .deb
> there's a question - which version to use? the 3.70 seems to be quite
> old but the newer one 3.89beta is, well, beta. Does
since lame seems to be the best mp3 encoder and there's no .deb
there's a question - which version to use? the 3.70 seems to be quite
old but the newer one 3.89beta is, well, beta. Does anybody have
experience with how good the beta is? I am mainly interested in sound
quality, not
Richard Swen wrote:
>
> I am very new to Linux and would like to know the best
> version of Debian to install on my computer.
>
> p3 550mhz
> 128megs of ram
> vodoo 3 3000
> soundblaster live
> 3com 3c905c
> Maxtor 13.0gig UDMA/66
> ABIT BE-6 II Motherboard
> IOMEGA 250MB Zip Drive
> 3com 56K Fax
surely you could run even a 2.4 kernel on a 386 with 8 Mb of ram?
I thought it was the Window managers and applications you chose to ran on linux
that dicated the hardware specs.. not the distribution version?
if i'm wrong i'd better find out why because it means i'm worng about a lot of
stuff.
The latest stable is 2.2. You're machine is more powerful than
mine, and I'm running 2.2 with no performance problems.
Mike
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Richard Swen wrote:
> I am very new to Linux and would like to know the best
> version of Debian to install on my computer.
>
> p3 5
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
