From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <38CAE049.19CBE77@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:09:45 +0100 From: Martin Costabel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca CC: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Are iso images really just LinuxPPC 2000 lite and the real images not up yet? References: <00031116160401.15887@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Part of the confusion may come from the fact that the README files in the images folder are not visible if you look at it via http, i.e. http://ftp.linuxppc.org/ftp/linuxppc-2000/images/ If you look at it via ftp, i.e. ftp://ftp.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-2000/images/, or on the mirrors, you see 3 README files explaining the situation. Seeing that many people downloaded the thing 3 or more times for lack of any instruction how to handle it, the idea of putting up a "lite" version doesn't seem to have worked out as intended. And I am still waiting impatiently for the contents (as opposed to the images) of LinuxPPC 2000 to show up on the ftp server (as well as the CDs in my mailbox). I am almost starting to feel the attraction of YDL whose newest release is there on their server, files and ISO images and everything. -- Martin Kevin Hendricks wrote: > > Hi, > > In another e-mail I just received someone said they thought the Mar 3 iso > images on ftp.linuxppc.org are simply mislabeled and they are really LinuxPPC > 2000 lite (which makes sense since no development stuff is there). > > Is this all just some mis-labeling of the images? > > Are the iso images really the LinuxPPC 2000 Lite images with the real images > to come later? > > I am still confused here? They are dated Mar 3 which Robert Shaw's BlueG3 site > said were the true images. > > Is ftp.linuxppc.org simply out of date? > > Anyone with some guidance about all of this? ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/