Slashdot Mirror

Nice, but not practical.
The reason is simple. .24 cents for one CDR * 6 = $1.44.
1 DVD = 11 dollars.
Now at companies like Linux System Labs, it a very simple point of economics.
The Current Debian Woody they have there with all 6 discs cost $9.99, where if the charge had to include purchasing a DVDR other such equipment. Add in the media, and your cost has at least tripled.
It's all a matter of cost economics.
Dave

I do some distro stuff for Linux Systems Labs, if you don't have a broad band connection, or can't find a good mirror we will have RH 7.2 CDR set available very shortly. Probably be on our website sometime on October 23rd. Have a good one!

I suggest you get 2-5 distros together, for a new user

Linux System Labs has a neat package like this specifically for this purpose ("tri-linux"), 11 CDs and four distros for 17.99 US$. I seem to remember they also had a 17-CD set but I don't see it now, so its possible I remember wrong.

In fact, I have been almost exclusively Debian and have already made three $5 donations to them (each time I buy something related, for instance at Linux System Labs. And that even with any obligation at all to do it.

Cheapbytes also has a Helix Gnome disc listed.

Has anyone found cheap CDs from another reliable source?

Don't want to wait in line for downloading?
(I know I hate waiting for downloads)
You can buy the ISO images on CD-R from Linux System Labs this upcoming Monday.

You mention that one of the largest complaints about Linux is that there is a lack of high-profile documentation. Well, I think you have to differentiate here: He/she who is really after the innards of the revamped IP stack will devour anything that is close to a documentation such as source comments, HOWTOs, READMEs and so forth.
On the other side, the 'decision makers' (who not necessarily are identical to the most technically educated/interested people) might prefer an abstract such as 'how to leverage the success of your e-commerce using a new IP stack' or 'IP for decision makers' or 'Huh? they can do dat with l33nux?'.

I have an elderly version of 'Linux the complete reference' by LSL which contains many (Mini-)HWOTOs and other stuff. Much of these documents deal with Linux 1.x versions and were refreshed with 2.x delta stuff. These readings still hold true for the 2.2.x kernels and probably will not be 'wrong' or 'untrue' for the 2.4 kernel.

My advice: Keep your book as it is and add the delta work as a smaller manual. That way the insider only needs to have the addendum with him/her and can leave the bulky Part I at home/office. Make these addendums subscribable, in both preprinted form as well as .PDF (no affiliation whatsoever) documents to download-after-pay. Or try to have one of the larger distros distribute your book. ('That manual deals with the TCP/IP kernel of Bonzo Linux in special but may also provide important informations for other distributions.', just like we see that in every second samba or firewalling book). You may even add a CD-ROM with a GPLed version of Dah One That Sponsored Thy Book.

I have been looking around for Helix, but I haven't had much luck finding it. I called some of the Linux CD distribution sites and LSL.COM said that they would have Helix out by next week. Has anybody found anywhere else?

-Katze

Linux System Labs is a US based company and has no affilation with LSL Australia. LSL (The US company since 1993) LSL has the "Official" Potato CDs in stock and is shipping now!

Linux System Labs (in the US) LSL has debian 2.2 in stock and is shipping out orders today!

Just try Linux System Labs or Cheap*Bytes. Both have low-price CDs (a lot cheaper than you'd find on big-name sites like LinuxMall or FreeBSDMall). I have experience with both of them and can highly reccomend either.

• LinuxOne's GPL violation status:
• • They acknowledge the requirement to provide a written offer in the README on the CDROM
  • They acknowledge the problem when contacted by phone
  • They have failed to follow through on providing the source code on their FTP site
• Caldera has distributed OpenLinux Demo CDs without source code or a written offer of source code.
• • The CDROM README file does no discuss the availablity of the source code at all
  • Caldera refuses to respond to email on the subject
  • Caldera refuses to address the problem when contacted by phone stating a policy of requiring software authors to contact the Caldera contact assigned to them at the time Caldera choose to redistribute their software (however, Caldera has not assigned contacts to GPL authors, only to companies authoring commerical licensed software). They have refused to acknowledge that there is any problem.
• Linux Systems Labs in their product titles implies that entire CDs are covered by the GPL when in actuality the CD conatins several packages that are not covered by the GPL (this act is described as a GPL violation by the Free Software Foundation)
• Linux Central when a binary only CD is ordered does not supply any written offer of source code availablity
• Cheap Bytes when a binary only CD is ordered does not supply any written offer of source code availablity
• IBM has been in violation of the LGPL for over 400 days since the time they have distributed unsupported ADSM for Linux. To date, they still have not made the object files for ADSM available for accomplishing relinking against modified versions of the LGPL material. There is every reason to believe that IBM will remain in violation of the LGPL throughout the entire 1999 year.

lsl.com
lsl

lsl.com
askslashdot

Not only can you use ftp/rpm/apt to get security updates, but places like LSL put them all together on nice $1.95 CD's for you...see here. Granted, they're probably a few updates behind, but the idea is sound. Don't know for sure, but perhaps places like Cheapbytes, the Linux Mall, LinuxCentral et al. have something similar.

They should start selling update cd's.

LSL updates their GPL RedHat CD constantly. From their web site:

Many times after an official distribution is released, bugs are found and updates are posted to the distributor's ftp site. The GNU General Public License allows us obtain the software and it's updates from a distribution site and creating a CD ROM with the site's contents. This ensures that you have the latest material and updates for the product and have a more recent version than the official distribution.

They should start selling update cd's.

LSL updates their GPL RedHat CD constantly. From their web site:

Many times after an official distribution is released, bugs are found and updates are posted to the distributor's ftp site. The GNU General Public License allows us obtain the software and it's updates from a distribution site and creating a CD ROM with the site's contents. This ensures that you have the latest material and updates for the product and have a more recent version than the official distribution.

So Wise Guy, how do I get on Microsoft's program to get their Hot Fixes beamed to me? Right now keeping up with security vulnerabilities on NT requires subscribing to the ntbugtraq.com, list, and searching Microsoft's site. That sure is a pain, but the alternative is waiting around for Service Packs. At least Windows 98 has the Critical Notification Update thingie which helps.

Red Hat has a page that can be monitered, and an e-mail list. And if that's not what you want, you can let someone else bundle the fixes together for you in something like MS' service packs. Try LSL for example.

I don't know about you, but I'll take keeping Red Hat up to date over NT any day.

Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out the auction in question, or this one. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.

However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?

When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?

Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.

To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL, Cheapbytes, and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.

Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out the auction in question, or this one. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.

However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?

When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?

Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.

To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL, Cheapbytes, and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.

Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out the auction in question, or this one. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.

However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?

When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?

Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.

To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL, Cheapbytes, and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.

Install one box with the CD and boot disk, NFS mount the CD on said box, (perhaps set it up as a DNS server) and use www.fezbox.com to generate a bootdisk image to install all the other machines. Make on floppy per machine and you can do it all simultaniously. It shouldn't be too hard to get to this stage of the game. Especially if you use redhat 6.0. You can get a RH6.0 CD from www.lsl.com for $0.95, and there's an installation manual on the CD, if you feel the urge to print it out.

LSL have it available burned and taking pre-orders for the "real factory deal".

http://www.lsl.com/

they always have the new stuff...




---------------

LSL have it available burned and taking pre-orders for the "real factory deal".

http://www.lsl.com/

they always have the new stuff...




---------------

If you are serious about learning a new operating system I would recomend doing a Slackware install to begin with. It is by far one of the more difficut ones to master. You will make mistakes during the install (god knows i did my first six times) but afterwards you will know how and why things in Linux are done.

After that you can move on to RedHat or Debian or some other more "user friendly" distributions so you can truely appreciate how easy they are trying to make it.

Linux Systems Labs is a good place to get Linux CD's if that's your thing, but if you've got ADSL you can just FTP the entire distro in about half an hour or so (i did a recent RedHat install from an FTP site).

Read some of the docs over at the Linux Documentation Project about making boot and root disks. After that, one of the options for install is "install from FTP site." Have the name of a FTP site (actually have five or six in case your first doesn't work) that has got the distro and then you are off. The install program will download a package and then install it.

I'm biased because I think Linux rocks so my opinion about the operating system probably can't be trusted. But if you actually go through with it you will not regret it.


----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

Huh?

From that link:
24. Red Hat 6.0 Official Release i386 Version SHIPPING $ 79.00

I imagine (s)he'd also rather not pay $79.00
Try this instead: LSL - you only pay shipping.
(We received it last week, and it's up and running, although pretty slow on a 233MMX w 32MB RAM).

Breace

Even wierder than installing your own binary is discovering that a "pro-linux" company has refused to comply with the terms of yourn *GPL* license because "very little money would be awarded in a law suit." LSL and Dan Irvin still bank on that they can "get away" with lieing to the Linux community. The written "offer" of providing source code is as empty as the LSL about page's claim that "[LSL's] entire operation is run with Linux." The website itself runs on FreeBSD, but LSL fails to credit the work of the FreeBSD developement team because they can "get away" with it. Well, FreeBSD != Linux and an empty offer for provide source code != compliance with GPL.

Dan Irvin, if your bothering to listen, PLEASE stop "getting away" with doing bad business. LSL needs to:

- Update the "about" page to state that the entire operation is run with "freely available operating systems" (it is NOT entirely run with Linux and Stronghold is not free software so it is not run entirely with free software either).

- Make distribution of source code a regular LSL *CATALOG* item instead of ignoring those that place an order for it and only making "special arrangments" for those users willing to complain on /. or UseNet. GPL requires *HONORING* a request for source code for a three year period if it was not distributed originally. What this means is that if LSL was continuing to distribute RedHat 4.0 and Slackware 3.0 without source code in March 1997 then LSL *SHOULD* be honoring requests for the source code to GPL packages withen RH 4.0 and Slackware 3.0 until March 2000 instead of telling customers when they call that it is no longer available.

However, instead of doing the above, Dan Irvin continues to operate LSL under the assumption that "getting away" with violating GPL is better than following licensing conditions for software that charges his company nothing for distribution. Source code to previous LSL product are still not items in the LSL catalog and the current LSL catalog includes products with binary only packages covered by GPL which LSL will also fail to honor source code requests for unless the customer bends over backwards to complain. That is not honoring the good faith nature of GPL! At the same time, Dan Irvin continues to post to UseNet as "info@lsl.com" talking about supporting Linux development. Well, who are you trying to kid, Mr Irvin? The same people that buy into FreeBSD and Linux being exactly the same like the LSL "about" page claims? If you care about "supporting" Linux developement then HONOR the GPL and *DISTRIBUTE* the *SOURCE CODE*.

The power to mature linux is in the distribution of source code -- "why settle for anything less?"