Pixel wrote:
>
> Pierre Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Allen Bolderoff wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem is that not even a win98 boot disk will work. win 98 just does not
> > > boot at all.
> >
> > Had this problem too when I upgraded to LM7.0 which wrote lilo into /dev/hda1
> > instead of /dev/hda... (Yes, I reported it back then...)
>
> and if that is really the pb, tell me!!
Thanks for noticing... [leaving out comments on the lack of a bug reporting
system] my particular problem occured when I changed the default DOS partition
name to "W98" and lilo may have used that as the trigger for writing to hda1
instead of hda... Just speculation now. At any rate, I get quite passionate
about install/upgrade issues; see below for some of my rants on this issue...
I will trash a distro based on the install, without ever getting to see what it
can do. My feeling is that the attention paid to install/upgrade issues is
proportional to the attention paid to small, but usually important (to the
customer), details throughout.
Retired and wanting to waste the least amount of time in my quest to help family
and friends transition to Linux,
Pierre
Posted on expert list Sept 14th:
[At the time, I did not know where the boot.* files really came from...]
> This raises a question... (and why I'm inputting at the top :)
>
> Has anyone else clobbered their boot blocks and used one of the /boot/boot.*
> files to recover it...?
>
> The reason I ask is that while I haven't booted the MacroShaft drive, I run
> some
> non-M$ W9x programs via wine. One day, I was installing LM7.0 which on its own
> decided to write lilo onto hda1 instead of hda (reported it and trashed LM7.0
> CD
> as a result). Since there was nothing to lose in trying to recover the boot
> block, I tried rewriting (dd) the ~438 bytes that were obviously clobbered to
> no
> avail.
>
> Then, I stumbled upon the /boot/boot.* files and upon closer examination
> decided
> that one of them was the image of what my M$ drive needed. dd'ed it into hda1
> and voila! I could access the partition again...
>
> Now, these boot.* files are inconsistent. Depending on the distro, if memory
> serves, some of these are lilo; but other than being misnamed (you have to look
> inside the files), some of these are copies of what you usually see on W9x, NT,
> OS/2, etc. Not all distros have all files.
>
> If someone has the knowledge of all these boot files, it might be helpful to
> make use of these (properly named with correct content) to create a recovery
> step for those poor newbie-souls-to-come who are sure to screw this up. Being
> able to restore a clobbered other-OS boot block would get Linux some kudos in
> the other camps...
>
> Just a thought,
> Pierre
Posted to TriangleLUG (Raleigh, NC) list Jun 29th:
> Maybe I should clear up my phylosophy... and NO, I'm not trying to start a
> religious war (if anyone has time for one, I have plenty of ideas for code that
> needs writing... :^)
>
> [...], this is not directed at you or anyone in particular; it's just that I
> think we're overdue for these comments if Linux is about to explode in numbers
> of new users...
>
> When it comes to Linux in general, we all can pretty much handle anything.
>
> On the other hand, when *installing* Linux, _I_ very deliberately and very
> carefully **BECOME "Joe Newbie"** (who won't know how to _get_ to a virtual
> console, let alone what that *is*).
>
> ** Why?
>
> <soapbox>
>
> Because I've been advocating Linux to colleagues, friends and family for a long
> time... These people have contacted me many times for support when they have
> Windows, or Appl-X problems and are getting closer to wanting to try this Linux
> thing I praise so much. My sister for example can do much of what she needs to
> on Windows; but she's been getting really ticked with M$ support lately. So I
> know the time is near when she'll what to make the switch. Problem: she's
> wheelchair bound with MS -- the disease (oops... the physical condition :^),
> and
> lives in Canada. The remote support will be difficult enough... The LAST
> thing
> I need is to recommend a distro, only to lose credibility when she runs into
> *any* type of stupid install error... And that goes for anyone wanting to try
> Linux for the first time.
>
> The "first impression"... The MOST important part of the first Linux
> experience
> is not that it doesn't crash, or that lots of stuff is free, or... Rather, it
> is CRUCIAL that the install be the smoothest experience of one's computer life.
>
> So... how bad is the situation...?
>
> I have in the past two months tried most distributions. All of which have
> stupid install quirks, no two alike.
>
> A newbie won't know or care that X, KDE, Netscape, etc are not really Linux.
> To
> that person, the CD reads "Mandrake Linux", "RedHat Linux", "Caldera
> OpenLinux",
> "TurboLinux", "StormLinux", etc... see the "pattern"...?
>
> IMNSHO, for the potential new users I've been priming, Mandrake keeps
> percolating to the top of the pile (with one exception). On the other hand,
> another distro might be appropriate for those people y'all are priming; the
> point is: *know your target newbie* and what they need to do with the
> computer. For my sister, we've recently exchanged e-amils discussing the
> "replacement applications" she would need before beginning the switch.
>
> </soapbox>
>
> OK... some specifics (and only the miniscule tip of the iceberg as it relates
> to
> a newbie's first impressions):
>
> [no particular order -- certainly no preference order]
>
> SlackWare:
> install is for experts
>
> TurboLinux:
> hangs on autoprobe -- most distros don't on same h/w
> only distro which hung at "LI" trying to load my Exabyte tape drive(!!)
>
> StormLinux:
> they spent lots of time on graphics (images);
> but almost no time on a working install
>
> Caldera OpenLinux:
> graphical install becomes graphical bootup (Lizard)
> 'Lizard' is "cute"; but usually gets clobbered with output
> which belongs on other virtual consoles. On certain errors,
> boot messages were not visible because video was in graphical
> mode making characters appear as pixels.
> This is the distro that was immediately hacked into.
>
> Linux Pro:
> roughly equal to RH
> installed LILO on hdb -- won't work on all machines...
>
> SuSe:
> install starts in German
> "dangerous" re-numbering (0,1 become 1,2)
> IDE-0/M or hda is called IDE-Bus1 Master
> IDE-1/S or hdd is called IDE-Bus2 Slave
> assumes entire HD available for Linux -- no option
> "partitions must be adjacent" -- say what?!
>
> RedHat:
> installed LILO on /dev/hda1 -- there goes the dual-boot... :^P
> Netscape 4.72 won't load -- segv and core dump
> gee... why would a newbie care..?
> X setup gives poor choice of display settings
> favors Gnome which I*M*O is not newbie ready
>
> Mandrake 7.0:
> after RH 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, Mdk6.0, Mdk6.1;
> this distro made me ill and sent me looking for another
>
> Mandrake 7.1:
> looking MUCH better -- BUT...
> 2nd CD problem on laptop (not my typical newbie though)
> finds devices but fails to set them up
> asks for IO/IRQ but fails to save them
> finds correct display settings; but won't select them after install
>
> Corel:
> not tested
> one review was quite cirtical of the wine-bassed apps
>
> FreeBSD:
> not tested
>
>
> So, if y'all were going to recommend a distro to your mom, aunt, real estate
> agent friend (OK not too many of those :^) which you would have to support
> remotely, which would you pick? Do you feel any are ready *today*...?
>
> I'm writing this because I believe that LUGs are in an excellent position to
> voice their [dis]pleasure to the makers of the distros, thus becoming well
> rounded Linux advocates.
>
> Would the TriLUG consider a section on the website for a "Hall of
> fame/shame"...? Sure would get the attention of those trying to make the big
> bucks off Linus' work... :^)
>
> Or... maybe it's time for a "standard install toolkit base"... tightly
> controlled as is 'Linux' itself.
>
> Pierre "'behind the scenes, in the trenches' Linux Advocate"
>
> PS: Please don't just rave on your favorite distro; there is a generic problem
> here and we (or someone) need to be [overly] critical of the install process,
> of
> which there are too many.
