RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
My initial response is that you have too many partitions, which just over-complicates matters. No, I am not saying it is wrong. It's just that things get really complicated with extended partitions. Of course, I should also fully disclose the fact that I dislike extended partitions and all of the inherit problems they cause. Invisible partitions is one of the side effects of extended partitions. When I was running dual boot between Windows 95 and Redhat 6.1, I used a total of four primary partitions: Windows, /boot, /, and swap. Granted, I had to use Partition Magic to create those partitions. Windows fdisk won't create linux partitions (surprised?) and the Redhat partition manager refused to create anything other than extended partitions for Linux. Grrr... Another full disclosure statement: I attempted to create the partitions *I* wanted with Redhat, got disgusted on the second attempt and yanked out the Partition Magic CD which just happened to be within arm's reach. I then installed Windows 95, rebooted and installed Redhat. When asked if I wanted to partition my drive, I yelled "You do it and DIE!" and it magically used the partions I had created with Partition Magic. :-) Anyway, I was able to access my Windows FAT32 partition from within Linux and could access the Linux partitions from within Windows. Bt... I think I just fried my brain. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the utility I used to access the Linux partitions from within Windows. All I remember now is that it provided stuff like ls and cp to ext2 partitions (albeit read-only access) from a DOS prompt. One point of worthy note here is that I found it trivially easy to partition the drive using Partition Magic. I first jotted down the default sizes recommended by Redhat's partition manager for /boot and swap then just typed those numbers into Partition Magic and chose the type of partition (FAT32, Linux or Linux Swap). I don't remember the exact size of each partition, but it was something like this: Device Boot Start End Blocks System /dev/hda1 * 1 x x /boot + lilo /dev/hda2x x x FAT32 /dev/hda3x x x Linux /dev/hda4x x x Linux Swap > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mary Gardiner > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS? > > > The trouble I've had sharing hard drives with Windows... :) > > Quick poll: can anyone who has ever managed to solve this situation please > mail their fdisk partition output, with discussion if you can. > > I have: > 3 primary partitions > hda1 is win C: > hda2 is /boot (back from lilo needing /boot to be within 1024 cylinders) > hda3 is D: > hda5- hda9 are on the extended > > fdisk has: > DeviceBootStart End Blocks Id > System > /dev/hda1 * 1 262 2104483+b Win95 FAT32 > /dev/hda2 263 275 104422+ 83 Linux > /dev/hda3 276 913 5124735 b Win95 FAT32 > /dev/hda4 914 18677663005 85 > Linux extended > /dev/hda5 914 977 514048+ 83 Linux > /dev/hda6 978 12392104483+83 Linux > /dev/hda7 124013701052226 83 Linux > /dev/hda8 13711396208813+ 82 Linux swap > /dev/hda9 139718673783276 83 Linux > > This all works fine now, except that Debian's lilo now follows > the FAT partition > convention that only one of them can be primary and 'hides' the > other. I have a > config option that turns this off, but would like to know if > anyone has ever > gotten Windows to share an extended partition with Linux. > > I had a terrible time with it. No matter what I did, Windows > would grab the > first two GB of the extended partition and say 'mine', without paying any > attention to the logical drives. Window's fdisk labelled hda3 > (which was the > extended at the time) as 'DOS extended partition'. I had to mark > it 85, Linux > extended, and now Windows ignores it as 'non-DOS'. > > Anyone got any better solutions - I got in a terrible IRC flamefest over > 'but it's incorrect', 'but it works!', 'but it's incorrect!' > > Mary. > > PS Back to techtalk. People should be posting to *both* while we > all resubscribe > and the DNS moves over. Not seeing DNS changes here btw. > > -- > Mary Gardiner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GPG Key ID: 77625870 > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > > ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
At 9:53 PM -0400 6/4/01, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote: >Point taken. However, those Librettos are older technology. Many of the >major manufacturers (IBM, Sony, HP, Compaq, Dell, and Toshiba at least) now >certify at least some of their desktop and/or laptop models as 100% Linux >compatible. In some cases you have to add manufacturer-supplied drivers, but >that applies to Winodws as well. I agree, and it has been a huge leap since even a year ago. >I disagree, and I'll get to why as I address your other points. The only >thing that is easier about Windows is that people are used to it already, and >don't have to learn a different way of doing things than what they know. >That, more than anything else, will hold Linux back if the big corporations >don't make a switch. I have to disagree on this one, being a pretty constant user of all three major OSes. Linux is by far the hardest of the 3 to setup, configure and deal with on a day to day basis, I think. It's not that each day I spend more time on Linux - I'd probably say on average I spend more time each day dealing with MacOS or Windows glitches. But when I have to deal with a linux glitch or setup of some sort, it's often (but not always) a much more major time suck, and more challenging, than dealing with the same issues in either windows or mac. Case in point: Do you think that pointing at an icon, clicking the "Next" button a few times, perhaps reading a little instructions is harder (or anywhere near as hard) than the following scenario that I have been through lots: tar -xzf some_new_software.tar.gz less INSTALL/README ./configure --with who knows how many options oops, forgot to set some environment variables ./configure --with options make make install Or: rpm -i new_software.rpm oops, dependency problem - go to rpmfind.com rpm -i dependent_software.rpm rpm -i the_other_dependency.rpm oops missing package - go back to rpmfind.com rpm -i final_package.rpm rpm -i new_software.rpm (Now, don't ya'll say "use Debian!" That's another thread! And I do know that Mandrake and Red Hat are working hard and making this easier as well.) Star Office, which is a huge program but has a nice GUI install was FAR easier to install than most little packages via rpm if you run into an (almost inevitable eventually) dependecy problem. Now, of course, at least in the tarball example above, compiling something from source gives you incredible flexibility that I'd personally not want to give up. But most people aren't me, or you. >See my comments above. The main difference between buying a Windows-ready >laptop and a Linux-ready laptop is that 1) Windows is preinstalled. This is >*huge*, and 2) You actually have to do a little reseach and choose a >Linux-ready one. Any laptop (except a Mac) will work with Windows. Agreed. >To me, the big issue that holds Linux back is product placement, not ease of >use. Finally, though, a crack in the Microsoft armor! Guess what I saw at >CompUSA? A tiny version of the Sony Vaio, preconfigured as dual boot: >Windows ME and Red Hat Linux 7.0. Very cool! If preconfigured Linux systems >get into the mainstream stores then it really *does* have a chance to catch >on. The question is: is that a good thing? How will the mainstreaming of >Linux change it? Cool. That's a nice change. I thin to some extent, Linux has already been changed by the mainstreaming of it on the server side. > > KOffice is impressive? From what perspective? My experience of >> KOffice is that it sucks rocks. It doesn't have that many features, >> some features are pretty strangely implemented, it crashes at the >> drop of the hat (I've tried this with a couple of different distros, >> so it wasn't the installation), and it can't deal with MS files, >> which for most people is essential, since they share files with folks >> who use MS office. > >I should have said "impressive for such a young product". Which version did >you try? That describes the version that came with KDE 1.9x and 2.0. The >version with 2.1.1 does have MS Office filters, though they need work, >doesn't crash, and has a feature list that is rapidly improving. I agree that KOffice has huge *potential*. It's just unrealized at this point. I've used the earlier versions, mostly. However, the most recent version I tried didn't do so well with an (admittedly complex) Word document. >I'm going to tackle this from two angles: First, 90% of computer users can't >install *any* operating system. They buy their system with the OS >preinstalled. This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so >critical. IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS >are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital. Yeah, OK, I agree here. >OTOH, to answer your question more directly, I honestly believe the answer is >"yes". Try something if you have the time. Install either current version >of Windows (2000 or ME) and get it t
[techtalk] Sharing an extended partition with Windows (was: Desktop OS?)
Hi, Mary, Yes, I've gotten Windows NT to share a large extended partition with both Linux and OS/2. Here's the catch: I cheated. I used Partition Magic to setup the partitions the way I wanted, and used OS/2's Boot Manager to select the OS. LILO lived on the first sector of the Linux partition, not on the MBR. Obviously, I used non-Linux tools to make this work. I know it's not the answer you wanted, but it can be done. Regards, Cait Caitlyn M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Analyst (919) 541-4441 Lockheed Martin (a contractor for the US EPA) ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [Techtalk] Sharing an extended partition with Windows (was: Desktop OS?)
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 10:26:24AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Mary, > > Yes, I've gotten Windows NT to share a large extended partition with both > Linux and OS/2. Here's the catch: I cheated. I used Partition Magic to > setup the partitions the way I wanted, and used OS/2's Boot Manager to > select the OS. LILO lived on the first sector of the Linux partition, not > on the MBR. Obviously, I used non-Linux tools to make this work. > > I know it's not the answer you wanted, but it can be done. Has anyone ever done it solely using Linux's and Windows' fdisks? I had a long long argument on IRC as previously mentioned with someone who claimed it was easy but both our boxen were set up some time ago :) Mary. -- Mary Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG Key ID: 77625870 ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
Caitlyn Martin said: I'm going to tackle this from two angles: First, 90% of computer users can't install *any* operating system. They buy their system with the OS preinstalled. This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so critical. IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital. This bothers me, I guess because I belong to that small fraction that you're dismissing. Is it really true that most people can't install an operating system? Of course, I'm trying to remember the last time I might have done that without the support of someone who *knows* what to do sitting right next to me. I can't. So maybe I can't do it on my own either. And then she said: To me, this is why preloads and corporate acceptance are what are going to determine whether or not Linux makes it on the desktop. I agree. I have a dual boot Windows 95/Mandrake machine, I would love to go all Linux but because I'm a freelance technical editor & writer I can't. I have to be running Microsoft Office so I can work in the documents I get. I've had a running argument with my husband about this. He thinks Linux is the wave of the future and everyone will love all the options you have with it. My take on it, while I'd love to agree with him, is that most end-users want a package deal of things that will work together without any major tweaking (which the average end-user is not capable of). And as far as I can tell, we still don't have that in the Linux world. Right now you can walk into a computer store or go to Dell online (not that I recommend this) and buy a computer that comes all preinstalled. All you have to do is follow the color-coded system to plug the keyboard, mouse, and monitor in. That kind of ease of use is what is needed for Linux (sacrilege!) before the average computer user will consider it. How many tech support departments are going to switch their company over to a system that requires all the work of installing, and then walking all the users through how to use the new system a million times? It's an uphill battle to get users to switch, because they're comfortable with what they've got and on the whole, it works for them. I have never, in 12 years of working in corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use Windows and/or Office. That may have more to do with where I live (Seattle area) than anything else, so I'd like to hear if that experience is not usual. KCB ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
> > I'm going to tackle this from two angles: First, 90% of computer users > can't > install *any* operating system. They buy their system with the OS > preinstalled. This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so > critical. IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS > are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital. > with this in mind .. i'd just like to comment on the fact that most people think linux is extremely difficult to install. ask them to reinstall their windows OS without using the manufacturer's wonderful recovery cd and they'll have nearly as much difficulty. > How many tech support departments are going to switch their company over to > a system that requires all the work of installing, and then walking all the > users through how to use the new system a million times? It's an uphill > battle to get users to switch, because they're comfortable with what they've > got and on the whole, it works for them. I have never, in 12 years of > working in corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use Windows > and/or Office. That may have more to do with where I live (Seattle area) > than anything else, so I'd like to hear if that experience is not usual. from my experience .. i know plenty of people who want more than anything to run linux rather than windows .. they just have these petty excuses, "i don't have time" or "blah blah blah" .. you can think of several on your own i'm sure. they want to .. they just don't. so yes, i would agree that most people are comfortable with what they have. abe ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] Re: [issues] Desktop OS?
Check out GNOME. It has a wide range of things available and Ximian's new set up tools and Red Carpet make installation easy. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:49:05 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many tech support departments are going to switch > their company over to a system that requires all the > work of installing, and then walking all the users > through how to use the new system a million times? It's > an uphill battle to get users to switch, because they're > comfortable with what they've got and on the whole, it > works for them. I have never, in 12 years of working in > corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use > Windows and/or Office. That may have more to do with > where I live (Seattle area) than anything else, so I'd > like to hear if that experience is not usual. > My office (which, admittedly, consists of myself and my boss and is a subset of a larger office) runs Debian. But my boyfriend's company, which is a good deal larger, not only runs Linux (RH, I think) in the office, but, afaik, also uses it in most or all of their stores. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
two isps i know of support linux as far as tech support goes .. abe > > How many tech support departments are going to switch > > their company over to a system that requires all the > > work of installing, and then walking all the users > > through how to use the new system a million times? It's > > an uphill battle to get users to switch, because they're > > comfortable with what they've got and on the whole, it > > works for them. I have never, in 12 years of working in > > corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use > > Windows and/or Office. That may have more to do with > > where I live (Seattle area) than anything else, so I'd > > like to hear if that experience is not usual. > > My office (which, admittedly, consists of myself and my boss > and is a subset of a larger office) runs Debian. But my > boyfriend's company, which is a good deal larger, not only > runs Linux (RH, I think) in the office, but, afaik, also > uses it in most or all of their stores. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
At 3:47 PM -0400 6/5/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hi yet again Michelle :) > >This has been a really good running dialogue, hasn't it? Indeed it has! One comment about the issue relating to the default installation of lots of stuff in Linux distros. One problem is that unless the folks putting the distro together are really focused on security, installing all of those extra things leads to the possibility of all sorts of security holes that one needs to know something to deal with. The fact that these days, a larger and larger percentage of people are sitting at the end of fatter pipes with much longer living IP addresses makes this even more of an important issue. Security has got to become user friendly too! That said, Windoze certainly isn't secure - so I'm not making that argument at all!!! One thing we didn't mention, which will make everyone's life a lot easier, and will do lots to move Linux forward, is Linux Standard Base. Anyone know what stage that's in? Does that have any hope of making it? >Look at what you are saying. You're not saying GIMP is in any way inferior >to Photoshop. You're saying it isn't marketed well (or at all). I agree. >Many of the "subsititute" apps are truly excellent, and GIMP is a wonderful >example. Konqueror and Mozilla are excellent alternatives to Internet >Explorer, but how many people know about them? The thing we, the Linux >community, needs to do if we want Linux to become mainstream is to educate >the public and to teach them that they shouldn't have to pay for >applications, period. We need to convince them that they are throwing >their money away. That is key. The thing is, do we, the Linux community, >ever want it to truly go mainstream? Can we fight it if companies like IBM >($1 billion invested in Linux this year alone) decide that they should take >it to the mainstream desktop? Food for thought. This is actually, I think, the crux of the issue. There is no question that some of the "substitute" apps are as good as the "real" ones - and given time to mature, many will become better. The problem is, how do we as the Linux community market products that are free? But who has the time or energy, when one is pretty busy trying to make a living? Photoshop is well marketed because Photoshop costs money, and they use some of that money in marketing. Apache, PostgreSQL, mySQL, sendmail, etc., the cool server tools we all use and love, depend not on marketing so much as the knowledge base of the folks (geeks, mostly) responsible for implementing those applications. I always thought it was really stupid for IBM, or Oracle to advertise on TV. What's the point? People use those server tools because they know about them technically, or, in some cases, it's what's easily available (like people who use IIS, SQL server and Exchange because they got a copy of Back Office with their server.) But the kinds of tools we use and like, like the Gimp, have no such economic backing. They are developed by a bunch of geeks in their spare time, and they give the product away. How can that be matched? But the truth is, we are up against a lot more than just the marketing $ of big software. Not paying for software (and therefore, not getting money making it either) goes against the dominant paradigm of the software industry - hell - it goes against the dominant paradigm of everything! Most people buy software in CompUSA, or stores like that. Well, those stores are never going to have free software in them. So in a sense, it's a catch-22. The apps don't get good publicity, and aren't easy to find - so Linux languishes on the desktop. >Isn't it sad that if we make Linux successful we inevitably destroy it for >ourselves? That is ironic, IMHO. Actually, I thought of something - the beauty of Linux is that it's UNIX. UNIX has such a strong foundation. If I wanted to, I could spend lots of time on the command line of MacOS X, and compile and add new window managers, etc. Linux is actually an OS that could evolve some really user-friendly front ends, but still be a nice place for geeks to play with. I'm sure once the KDE/GNOME/Whatever battle is settled, someone will come up with a new incredibly powerful and totally incomprehensible window manager (maybe 3-D???) that we can all be happy with. :-) Michelle -- ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
in response to the idea of bringing linux into the mainstream ... i've found that LUG participation focuses in almost all cases primarily on this cause. the majority of time i've spent at lug meetings has been educating the new comers to linux or else thinking of ways to invite more people. one of the most momentous meetings was when a fairly old couple .. not to stereotype or anything .. but they were pretty "woodsy" (to refrain from the usage of 'redneck') .. initially, my thoughts were oh god .. teaching these people is going to be hell. then they busted in on our conversation saying "yeah, we just installed redhat and were wondering ..." needless to say, we were all very impressed and this was also very inspiring. i believe that more and more people are getting fed up with microsoft .. whether it be for the whole anti-trust case, the flaws in the windows operating system, or just the hype about a "new" operating system called linux. they here about linux as free, and generally, most people who run linux love it .. hence, they run it. this motivates people to get out and experience more. abe ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
