RedHat 8.0 Upgrade.?

Balthazar

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2000
1,834
0
0
Ok, this crap about having a 5 CD distro is ass, any idea how many CD's I need to perform an upgrade from 7.2?
I have the first three downloaded, but which ones will it ask for with a workstation style installation?
 

cleverhandle

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2001
3,566
3
81
If you have the first 3 discs, you have all you'll need. You may only need 2 of the 3, but there would be no way to predict that without searching through the RPM's to see what's there and what you'll be installing, which is obviously not worth the time...

If three CD's is too much for you, Slackware still fits on only 1. But don't complain when you're missing a nice graphical tool, or need to hunt down packages on the net.
 

Balthazar

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2000
1,834
0
0
I will only burn the first two, for some reason I keep thinking my last install only needed the first two.
And if it bitches about me not having the third CD, then guess whats getting uninstalled?

Next time I hear a Linux Junkie b!tch about windows install being bloated I am going to ask why the F RedHat wants over a GB of disk space, and is (not including source) 3CD's larger.

I mean it's nice they include all these utils, but installing PDA developer packages for a WORKSTATION machine is a bit retarded.
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,291
2,326
136
Granted, there's a lot of variation in the quality of all that software, but Red Hat Linux 8.0 on 3 CDs probably has 20 times the functionality of a Windows OS on 1 CD. Bitching that you get so much more software is kinda silly, although I will agree that software selection in all the installers I've seen is far from perfect. If you're doing an inplace-upgrade, you should have all 3 CDs on hand. Downloading 3 and burning 2 as a matter of principle is simply retarded.

So yeah sure, some of the commercial Linux operating systems are getting fat, but YOU still control what goes in, and you can always choose a leaner distro (say Debian or Gentoo I believe), or even *BSD.

With Windows XP in particular, you get just as much disk space occupied (say 1.2 GB w/ the paging file), but with no control over the unwanted MSN tie-in crap and a lot less functionality overall. Furthermore, in almost all cases, bloat in Linux is just disk bloat. Whereas in Windows, it's more than disk bloat and can meaningfully impact overall system performance or pester the user until they sign up for .NET Passport.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
You want small? I can fit a full installation of OpenBSD (no X) on a 237mB hard drive, *WITH* source and have room to build the system. But what is it good for? Not a whole lot. Just anything the default install is good for. Webserver, firewall, email server. All using the default programs. But its not a desktop system, and its not a system that is easily customizable. You get 3 cds for the base system and a bunch of extra packages. You dont like it? Use something else. Its not bloat really. Think about how much time you spend downloading progams in Windows to get an almost useful desktop... Takes me forever.
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

Next time I hear a Linux Junkie b!tch about windows install being bloated I am going to ask why the F RedHat wants over a GB of disk space, and is (not including source) 3CD's larger.
I just did a fresh RH8 standard-desktop install (only used psyche disk1 & disk2) and it took only 1.5gb, that included OpenOffice, Gimp, GNOME & X. I'm sure that you could easily drop the install down to a low 600-800 if you chose not to install the default apps & GUIs, and the custom install is verylikely let you have an install with X for as little as 500mb.

I'm not too sure if Win2k or XP would let you customized your system as low as 500mb or not, but one thing for sure that the default install is over 1 GB with out MS-Office, and no PDF reader/writer.

PS. I have been using beautiful & free OpenOffice for a few months now and am enjoying it much more than MS-Office2k.

 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

You want small? I can fit a full installation of OpenBSD (no X) on a 237mB hard drive, *WITH* source and have room to build the system.
Linux is extreamly nice & lean for optimization. At my last job we built signle, dual & quad processor with raid systems for Oracle & DB2 database that uses highly optimized and funtional Debian potato kernel at 43-67 megs (no X).
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: lowtech
You want small? I can fit a full installation of OpenBSD (no X) on a 237mB hard drive, *WITH* source and have room to build the system.
Linux is extreamly nice & lean for optimization. At my last job we built signle, dual & quad processor with raid systems for Oracle & DB2 database that uses highly optimized and funtional Debian potato kernel at 43-67 megs (no X).

I dont know how small I can get OpenBSD, I havent tried. But several people have gotten it to work well on 128mB compactflash cards.