I just started the procedure a few mintues ago and it does, indeed require you
tell it to partition your drive, but now that it's on its way, its automatic,
i.e. it should do the rest by itself, using all the default settings. (I
think ... If I'm wrong, I'll know pretty soon, since its only formatting a
small drive).
Well, it does require one tell it not to name the partition when it's done
formatting. I guess the last one (I don't have to do this often) must have
been formatted already. In that case, at a friend's house, I started the
process from the CD and then helped him change a tire. When we were done so
was the computer, IIRC. That was on one of those $239 666 MHz eTowers that
were spammed to the list. I was involved with several of them. They were an
excellent buy for $239, with a DVD, 256 MB, 20GB HDD, modem, sound, video, all
built in. The install went slicker'n snot on a doorknob.
What I find odd, however, is that the setup when booting the install cd, is
that it doesn't ask for the product key at the same point in the process as
one would ordinarily expect. Normally, when I install on a blank HDD, I
expect it to ask for the product key early in the process before "copying
files" to the HDD. In this case, it waits until after the install is more or
less complete, and then only after doing all the plug-n-pray stuff and setting
up the drivers and control panel, does it get around to asking for the product
key. Bizarre!
Last time I went through the Linux cycle, I did it with RedHat v4, "Open
Linux," Linux Pro, and Slackware. All those had been sent to me gratis, and I
tried 'em all, but was pretty focused on getting the MARS NWE to work, which
it didn't, so I punted 'em all after failing to make sense of the documents
and running in to several self-contradictions.
Maybe it's time to take another look.
Back in the '80's the problem with the Mac was that there were few
applications, and later on, when there were a few, the system viewed as a
whole was entirely too costly and restrictive. It had no bus for use in
hardware work, (it was before the II came out), so I stuck with the PC. The
PC allows you to do a lot. Of course, a PC with Linux would do the same, and,
possibly, more conveniently. Once I get a better "feel" for what can be done
with a Mac, I'll decide where they'll fit in the scheme of things. I've often
lamented that they are so limited, since they're much more available at little
cost than PC's. Of course, I haven't seen a Mac in an office in years. They
were once popular in the desktop publishing business, but I don't see 'em
there anymore. I passed up an 8800 PowerMac the other day because they wanted
$15 for it with no keyboard or whatever. I might have risked it, but it
looked as though it might have been abused.
How would a Mac do at running Linux or the like?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc_at_mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > I don't see how it could be any easier to install than Win98. I just put
the
> > CD in the drive and reset the machine. Then I go away, to lunch, perhaps,
and
> > when I'm back the drive is freshly formatted as a single partition under
FAT32
> > and the OS is completely installed, the drivers in place, the modem ready
to
> > align with the internet parameters it wants (server names, addresses, etc)
and
> > then I can install applications. If I don't want the HDD reformatted, I
have
> > to stay long enough to tell it not to do that. It looks to see what the
> > hardware is and installs the appropriate drivers. It builds its own swap
> > file.
>
> This I have trouble swallowing. I do have to install Windows
> 98, and 98SE, regularly, and as far as I'm aware there is no walk-away
> install written/scripted [1]. You have to partition your drive, unless
> it's prepartitioned, you choose your install type, etc, etc.
> And you seem to have missed the fact that when the Linux install is
> done, *** the applications are in place ***. RH, which was my example,
> can automatically partition & format your drive. All hardware is
> autodetected - except your mouse [2] - and configured. There are several
> fill-in-the-blanks ISP config tools. The GUI interface is configured.
> And, most likely, everything else.
>
> [1] RedHat, and I believe SuSE, offer true walkaway install scripts.
> From a RH box, you can use a GUI point&click interface to set up a boot
> floppy that will install exactly what you want, How you want it. Insert
> floppy, turn on power, go away for ~25 minutes, come back, remove
> floppy, reboot. Gorgeous.
>
> > Nevertheless, I can grab what's on the various sites. We do have a few
T3's
> > after all.
>
> I haven't seen RH 7.3 yet, which I think released today. Meaning all
> their mirrors will be hammered for a week. V7.2 is sweet.
>
> > Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't mind a command line at all.
> > Much of my editing is done in WordStar. ( I like to be able to prune out
> > columns, and few text editors allow that.) Almost everything I do with
> > respect to hardware development and testing is done on a DOS-only box.
>
> I don't "believe" anything, necessarily. The fact that you're here at
> all would tend to contraindicate CLI-phobia.
>
> > I recognize that there are some pretty decent Linux based cross-compilers
and
> > simulators, not to mention cross-assemblers and debuggers. I just don't
want
> > to have to learn to parse cryptic gibberish like what was presented as a
> > "cute" example by one of the script kiddies demonstrating his prowess at
perl
> > or whatever. I just don't have time to try to impress somebody else. I
just
> > want to get the work out.
>
> I'm not a "l337 Linux D00D" I don't do perl, or C, for that matter.
> I'm OK at scripting, and a hell of a troubleshooter. A large part of my
> job is using Linux & Unix boxen to help Windows boxes communicate
> safely. My desktop box at home runs Linux. I check my email, do
> research, watch movies, listen to CD's, do my books, and write the
> documentation I can't avoid on it. I've found that all that happens
> very easily in Linux.
>
> > I haven't had a Windows crash resulting in a data loss except for one
recent
> > occasion where my elder son presented me with a diskette that had been in
one
> > of the computers at school. Thank goodness for backups, however
burdensome
> > they may be!
>
> I'm not even going into the virus situation.
>
> > So which version/release of Linux do you hold in highest esteem? Why?
What
> > are its strengths? Has it any annoying weaknesses?
>
> Debian. If I want to do something, and the command isn't there, I
> type "apt-cache search <keyword>" Apt, the software manager, returns a
> list of packages whose descriptions contain the keyword. If I see what
> I want, and I usually do, I type "apt-get install <name-of-package>" and
> it is so. Located, downloaded, installed and configured. If there are
> config options, they are presented in a clear, well-explained dialog.
> If I want to upgrade an existing packeage, same command. Apt goes out,
> looks for a newer release, gets it, installs it. Or, "apt-get
> dist-upgrade" does same for every package installed.
>
> It has the most godawful package selection interface - dselect - in
> Creation. "Tasksel", the alternative, and the commandline tools are
> fairly straightforward and easy, but dselect has frightened away many a
> prospective Debianista.
> Debian has a rep for being the "hackers' distro", and for being very
> raw. It does take more work initially to bring up a Debian install.
> After that, it's a no-brainer. Everything is done.
>
> The truth is, I like RedHat, if anybody besides me has root or
> "elevated" privileges. It's as close to a Universal Distribution as
> there is. And it has KickStart.
> I do Linux training, and a lot of it is on RedHat, so when I
> say it's easy to use, install and learn, I'm not talking through my hat.
>
> Doc
>
>
Received on Tue May 07 2002 - 03:59:59 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:21 BST