FTP install vs ISO's

Printable View

May 29th, 2002, 04:43 AM
65_289

FTP install vs ISO's

Next week, when I get on the T-1 (and become admin of that network ;) ) I will be installing Linux, most likely RH 7.3. Has anyone done an FTP install? I am curious about this method, because as far as I can see, you would only download the packages you want to install, not all of them. Like I have said, I have had bad luck with ISO's not installing properly before, and I'd rather not waste the time/CD's, even if they are $0.50 each.

So what do you think, try the FTP, or d/l both ISO's and burn?
May 29th, 2002, 04:43 AM
65_289

FTP install vs ISO's

Next week, when I get on the T-1 (and become admin of that network ;) ) I will be installing Linux, most likely RH 7.3. Has anyone done an FTP install? I am curious about this method, because as far as I can see, you would only download the packages you want to install, not all of them. Like I have said, I have had bad luck with ISO's not installing properly before, and I'd rather not waste the time/CD's, even if they are $0.50 each.

So what do you think, try the FTP, or d/l both ISO's and burn?
May 29th, 2002, 04:57 AM
Tedob1

burn'em you can take them home or give them to someone who isn't as fortunate as to have access to a T

or you could do the ftp thing for the experience and burn them for the hell of it. hell as admin you can do pretty much any thing you want as long as every thing gets taken care of.
May 29th, 2002, 04:57 AM
Tedob1

burn'em you can take them home or give them to someone who isn't as fortunate as to have access to a T

or you could do the ftp thing for the experience and burn them for the hell of it. hell as admin you can do pretty much any thing you want as long as every thing gets taken care of.
May 29th, 2002, 05:05 AM
65_289

Quote:

Originally posted here by Tedob1
... hell as admin you can do pretty much any thing you want as long as every thing gets taken care of.

LOL!! It's weird. I used to live there, now I'm moving back. It's an apartment complex that shares a T-1. The current/"fixing to be leaving" admin had everyone with the good old "192.168.0.XXX" IP address with a 255.255.255.0 subnet, and (I assume) a NAT. But as far as my (very limited) understanding of TCP/IP, there is only room for 255 hosts. What happens if we have more than 255 people on it? Would I have to change the subnet of some of them?
May 29th, 2002, 05:05 AM
65_289

Quote:

Originally posted here by Tedob1
... hell as admin you can do pretty much any thing you want as long as every thing gets taken care of.

LOL!! It's weird. I used to live there, now I'm moving back. It's an apartment complex that shares a T-1. The current/"fixing to be leaving" admin had everyone with the good old "192.168.0.XXX" IP address with a 255.255.255.0 subnet, and (I assume) a NAT. But as far as my (very limited) understanding of TCP/IP, there is only room for 255 hosts. What happens if we have more than 255 people on it? Would I have to change the subnet of some of them?