SPEAKING of which....
I've got (or rather, HAD) my box at home running RH6.2 and Win98SE
running dual boot... and then had a crash due to (I think!) a SDRAM
going bad (Kingston, if anyone's interested.... and less than a year
old). I've reinstalled Win98SE (Linux should be fine) but of course....
And then I reach for the (labeled) RH boot diskette to restore the system
by rerunning Lilo and I find that my wife has overwritten it....
So, how do I restore the dual boot without a boot diskette? Can I
just use my CD with the install disk to mount the drives?
Or do I need to find Toms Root Boot to restore what Billy Boy destroyed?
Bill Ward
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jude. T
Subject: RE: why linux gets such a bad rap ...
Try this another way.
Put Linux on a machine, then try to install Windo$e (any flavour) as a dual
boot box.
You can't can you...
Windo$e insists that it is the only OS on the machine.. (or primary OS if
you want t get technical)
Windo$e will install fine, but it will wipe the other OS boot info along
the way.
Now is that Linux's fault ?????
surely it is... Bill can't be wrong, nah!!
Darryl
At 12:32 AM 10/12/2000, Paul Anderson wrote:
>All I have to say to this is that my 14 year old daughter installed 7.0 on
a
>dual boot machine (the 98 was already installed), having never installed an
>operating system in her life. Except for some help with disk partitioning,
>she did it without help. I tried this as an experiment to see how much
>expertise it took to do the install. Obviously this tells me something
>about the author of the article.
>
>Paul Anderson
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rpjday
>Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 5:05 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: why linux gets such a bad rap ...
>
>
>
>... subtitled: a man really should know his limitations.
>
> a recent security column in the nov 27 issue of computerworld is the
>perfect example of why people who don't understand linux shouldn't be bad
>mouthing it.
>
> in "security manager's journal," someone who goes by the pseudonym of
>"jude thaddeus" (and whose email address can be found under the "Cc:"
>listing above) writes of his trials and tribulations regarding installing
>linux thusly:
>
> "... Well, I finally did it, though in the end, I installed it
> about 10 times because things kept going wrong. Admittedly,
> some of these errors were due to crass mistakes on my part,
> but it was still a difficult process.
>
> "Most of the mistakes were caused by trying to install
> Windows 2000 and Linux on the same machine. People have told
> me that its [sic] possible to do it, but in practice, the
> resulting mess was beyond the abilities of even our resident
> Linux expert to sort out. ..."
>
> Where to even begin discrediting such idiocy? Apparently, the author
>admits he's never even *met* someone who's configured a dual-boot machine,
>and who might have given him some useful advice.
>
> And while setting up dual-boot *might* be a bit tricky for a novice,
>it's hard to understand why that should be such a problem for the
>"resident Linux expert." Methinks that this expert was chosen as being
>the first person in the office who ventured the opinion, "Well, yeah, I
>installed Linux on my machine at home yesterday. I'll give it a shot."
>
> Is it any wonder linux is getting such a bad rap for being difficult
>when columnists get to blame their problems on the operating system and
>not on their own breathtaking incompetence? resident linux expert,
>indeed. sheesh.
>
>rday
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
