Linux-Setup Digest #377, Volume #21 Tue, 5 Jun 01 15:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: Lilo questions ("KW")
Re: Root File System Corruption ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Is this fixable? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Conner Tape (Leonard Evens)
Linux kernel 2.4.4 does not see all of 1 GB memory. ("Alaattin Caliskan")
Re: i386,i486,i586 ... (Markku Kolkka)
Re: Please help me get WIN98 back!! ("Somphong K")
Re: Geforce2 Go and XFree 4.0.3 ("Ulf Junghans")
A Linux pcmica problem (Glenn Zenker)
Re: Is this fixable? (Colin Watson)
Re: Red Hat Newbie -- Can I do this? (Dave Berntson)
Re: Linux kernel 2.4.4 does not see all of 1 GB memory. ("Peter T. Breuer")
booting Linux on hdb (KCmaniac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "KW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lilo questions
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:13:12 -0500
I think most lilo docs I've seen show a way to tell lilo the CHS of the drive
to help with any geometry problems... so you might try this
in lilo add
linear
or try the following info I got from an ebook on lilo
LILO is usually able to obtain information about the hard disks and floppy
disks on the system by reading the kernel. On some systems(especially some SCSI
adapters and adapters that do not behave as IDE or SCSI normal devices),
though, this isn't possible. When LILO can't obtain the disk parameter
information, it generates an error message about "bad geometry."
The disk parameters can be physically read by LILO from the file
/etc/lilo/disktab, which exists only with some versions of Linux. When the
disktab file exists, it takes precedence over any auto-detected values. The
disktab file contains the device number (hexadecimal), its BIOS code, and the
disk geometry. A sample disktab file could have the following entries:
# /etc/lilo/disktab - LILO disk paramter table
#
# Dev. num BIOS code Secs/track Heads/cyl Cyls Part. Offset
#
0x800 0x80 32 64 1714 0
0x801 0x80 32 64 1714 1001
This example shows a SCSI disk with two partitions. The first partition
/dev/sda1 has a device number 800, and the second partition /dev/sda2 has the
device number 801. Both partitions have the BIOS code 80. Both the device
number and BIOS code have to be given in hex format, which accounts for the
leading 0x. The disk has 32 sectors per track, 64 heads per cylinder, and 1714
cylinders. Because both partitions are on the same disk, these parameters will
be the same.
The partition offset is an optional field. The first partition starts at offset
0, and the second starts at offset 1001 (the number of sectors from the start
of the disk). The partition offsets need only be explicitly given when the
kernel cannot obtain that information. Most hard disks (including removable and
optical disks) don't need the partition offsets, but CD-ROMs sometimes do.
When filling in the /etc/lilo/disktab file you don't have to have
the details exactly right. Most systems will remap the drive
parameters to 32 sectors per track and 64 heads, whether those
numbers are correct or not. (This is a BIOS action.) The number of
cylinders must be at least equal to or higher than the number of
actual cylinders to avoid truncation of the disk space the
operating system recognizes.
Some BIOS versions will not allow disks exceeding certain values. This problem
usually occurs with IDE and SCSI controller cards that are designed for DOS
systems with relatively small (<1G) disk drives and older BIOSs. Device drivers
allow some high-capacity drives to be used, although some systems will have a
problem accessing files beyond the 1G limit.
In article <3b1ca599$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peet Grobler" <peetgr at
absa.co.za> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> Why does this happen, and what can I do to rectify it?
>>
>>Try boot with a rescue disk or a boot floppy and then run lilo at the command
>>prompt (you must login as root). Check also your LILO installation and
>>configuration file.
>
> That's what I've done. I boot off the distro's installation's diskette, then
> do the following:
> mount /dev/hda1 /mnt
> cd /mnt
> chroot /mnt /bin/bash
> /sbin/lilo
>
> The configuration file is correct. I do not have it with me, so I am unable
> to show you what's in it. But I checked it and it's fine.
>
>>Davide
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Root File System Corruption
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:04:28 +0200
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter T. Breuer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter T. Breuer"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> is it likely that whatever was put in lost+found is part of an
>>>>> important file that is now damaged?
>>>> Have a look, and you may well find out. Peter
>>
>>> I looked. Looks like binary trash to me. I'd be happier
>> How long is it? If it's 40bytes, then it's some random tmp file. If it's
>> 4096 bytes then it well might be a block of an executable.
> It's 191 bytes. Couldn't it be the last block of an executable?
No (it's very unlikely). It's likely an authentication file. If you
were to pass it through od -h or od -a I could maybe tell you, but I'd
just throw it away. You likely will never need the last 192 bytes of
an executable file anyway! What can it have left to do in 192 bytes?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is this fixable?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:16:30 +0200
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why do you think that installing a new glibc will break old executables?
>>
>>Eh? Surely in this case it should do. The symbols are versioned, and
>>a 2.1 to 2.2 change should cause most 2.1 symbols not to be found in
>>the new 2.2 library, no?
> Try it yourself. Build a Debian potato chroot (fetch base2_2.tgz and
> untar it somewhere), which gives you glibc 2.1.3. Put woody in your
I have glibc 2.1.3 (debian stable).
> /etc/apt/sources.list, then apt-get install libc6 (which is 2.2.3). Easy
I have debian testing in my deb-src sources list. I'm sort of
recompiling everything against 2.1.3 instead of 2.2.3, so have a
2.1.3 -based debian testing.
> experiment. I had to do the install run twice because a few things got
Unfortunately one that I refuse to carry out :-). Been there, done
that, in general, especially with respect to libdb. Changing libdb is
known deadly to human life. I'm really not going to do it with libc.
I simply don't believe any tales of survival.
> installed in the wrong order for some reason, but everything still
> appears to work at the end. I've done this plenty of times before.
> Oh yeah, and:
> [cjw44@riva ~]$ objdump -p /lib/libc.so.6 | \
>> perl -00ne 'print, exit if /Version definitions/'
> Version definitions:
> 1 0x01 0x0865f4e6 libc.so.6
> 2 0x00 0x0d696910 GLIBC_2.0
> 3 0x00 0x0d696911 GLIBC_2.1
> GLIBC_2.0
> 4 0x00 0x09691f71 GLIBC_2.1.1
> GLIBC_2.1
> 5 0x00 0x09691f72 GLIBC_2.1.2
> GLIBC_2.1.1
> 6 0x00 0x09691f73 GLIBC_2.1.3
> GLIBC_2.1.2
> 7 0x00 0x0d696912 GLIBC_2.2
> GLIBC_2.1.3
> 8 0x00 0x09691a71 GLIBC_2.2.1
> GLIBC_2.2
> 9 0x00 0x09691a72 GLIBC_2.2.2
> GLIBC_2.2.1
> 10 0x00 0x09691a73 GLIBC_2.2.3
> GLIBC_2.2.2
>>> (Hint: it won't, at least not if done properly.) Of course, installing
>>> it by brute force is never a good idea.
>>
>>Yes. But I really doubt if 2.1 and 2.2 can coexist with equal status
>>(I'm not about to try it just to find out!). Now libc5 and libc6 we
>>know have no problem living with each other.
> No, I wouldn't think that trying to get them to coexist is a good idea.
Awww ... OK, I'll compile libc 2.2 against libc 2.1, how's that? Then
I'll swap them, while in a su static shell, with my finger on the
static copy of ln .... how's that?
BTW, the new man-db is working well. But I had to move up tons of
stuff, principally perl to 5.6, in order to compile it. And yes, I see
that it needed a libdb2, which is probably from where I remember the
last nasty experience with libdb.
Maintainer: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Version: 2.3.17.1-5
...
Depends: groff (>> 1.15-3.ja.3) | jgroff (>> 1.15), bsdmainutils, libc6
(>= 2.1.2), libdb2 (>= 1:2.4.14-7)
Conflicts: man, suidmanager (<< 0.50)
in case you want to compare the computed requirements against yours ... I
imagine my set is lower.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Conner Tape
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:14:49 -0500
Greg wrote:
>
> I have a Conner CTT3200 I-F tape drive. It uses a floppy controller via
> IDE card. How do you set this thing up to work ? Do I have to have
> certain drivers ? Do I have to have the jumpers set in a certain way ?
>
> Thanks
The floppy controller and the IDE ports are different. Perhaps
I don't understand you, but if the tape drive uses the floppy
controller, it would be plugged into the floppy controller by
using the same cable that the floppy drive is connected to.
Such tape drives use the ftape package. IDE (ATAPI) tape drives
are plugged into one of the two IDE ports through the appropriate
cable.
I've been searching the web to find out just what that tape drive
is, but I can't find it. Conner seems to have been absorbed by
Seagate, and the Seagate web site doesn't mention it.
If it is an IDE tape drive, it should be available as the
device /dev/ht0 (nht0 for non windinding device) under Linux.
To install the drive, whether it uses the floppy controller or
an ide port, you may need to worry about termination by setting
a jumper on the drive or on any device it shares a cable with.
Can you provide some more details about the drive, such as what
kind of tapes it uses and which cable you were trying to connect
it to?
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: "Alaattin Caliskan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Linux kernel 2.4.4 does not see all of 1 GB memory.
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:27:26 -0400
Hi All,
Recently we installed an additional 512 MB of RDRAM to a Linux computer,
reaching a total of 1 GB. Kernel 2.2.16-22 sees all of the memory, and
reports 1035624 KB. However, kernel 2.4.4 only reports 899532 KB.
I have tried booting kernel 2.4.4 with mem=1024M and mem=1023M as options to
lilo. No success...
Can someone please point me in the right direction to fix this problem.
Note: The machine is a Dell Precision 420 workstation, with dual Pentium III
933 MHz processors. Redhat 7.0 was originally loaded. Then I compiled and
added kernel 2.4.4 manually.
Note2: Don't throw anything at me! 900 MB that 2.4.4 sees is of course good
but I still need as much memory as possible for a special task I am
performing.
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Markku Kolkka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: i386,i486,i586 ...
Date: 05 Jun 2001 20:30:21 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> i386 : 386 and later processors
> i586 : optimized for pentium and later processors
> i686 : optimized for pentium pro and later processors
Actually the suffix (infix?) in the rpm files indicates the _minimum_
CPU requirement, so i586 binaries will crash on a i386. At least
RedHat claims that their "i386" binaries are _optimized_ for i686 CPUs
but will run even on i386. (gcc options -mcpu=i686 -march=i386).
--
Markku Kolkka
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Somphong K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Please help me get WIN98 back!!
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:23:50 -0400
When I mentioned I could not boot from Wind98 recover diskette,
I meant the PC read the floppy for a few seconds, then turn to
read the C drive (/dev/hda) over and over. I could see the disk
access indicator lit on and off. The only way to get out was to
do ctrl-alt-del :-) It happened the same way with Win98 CD.
I reshuffled boot device sequence a few times (floppy/HD/CDROM)
but to no avail.
Please find herewith the fdisk diskplay of both drives. I would
really appreciate some advice how to fix the problem.
Rgds somphong
[root@localhost /etc]# fdisk /dev/hda
The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 3736.
There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024,
and could in certain setups cause problems with:
1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO)
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs
(e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK)
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 3736 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 2040 16386268+ b Win95 FAT32
Command (m for help): v
27246302 unallocated secotrs
Command (m for help): x
Expert command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 3736 cylinders
Nr AF Hd Sec Cyl Hd Sec Cyl Start Size ID
1 80 1 1 0 254 63 1023 63 32772537 0b
2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
3 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Expert command (m for help):
======================================================
[root@localhost /etc]# fdisk /dev/hdb
The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 2100.
There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024,
and could in certain setups cause problems with:
1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., old versions of LILO)
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs
(e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK)
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 2100 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 * 1 3 24066 83 Linux
/dev/hdb2 4 2100 16844152+ 5 Extended
/dev/hdb5 4 1023 8193118+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb6 1024 1661 5124703+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb7 1662 1820 1277136 83 Linux
/dev/hdb8 1821 1886 530113+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb9 1887 1952 530113+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb10 1953 2018 530113+ 82 Linux swap
/dev/hdb11 2019 2084 530113+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb12 2085 2100 128488+ 83 Linux
Command (m for help): v
555 unallocated secotrs
Command (m for help): x
Expert command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 2100 cylinders
Nr AF Hd Sec Cyl Hd Sec Cyl Start Size ID
1 80 1 1 0 254 63 2 63 48132 83
2 00 0 1 3 254 63 1023 48195 33688305 05
3 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
5 00 1 1 3 254 63 1022 63 16386237 83
6 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 10249407 83
7 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 2554272 83
8 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 1060227 83
9 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 1060227 83
10 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 1060227 82
11 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 1060227 83
12 00 1 1 1023 254 63 1023 63 256977 83
Expert command (m for help):
=============================
hda c/h/s = 3736/255/63
hdb c/h/s = 2100/255/63
=============================
"Somphong K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9f0sna$a37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> During this Memorial weekend, I installed Redhat 7.1 (Kernel 2.4.2-2)
> on my PC at home. Win98 is on IDE drive/A and Rh7.1 completely on IDE
> drive/B. I did not realize at the time that part of linux, such as /boot
> partition, had to be on drive/A to use LILO.
>
> During graphic installation,I was prompted where to put LILO i.e. in MBR
> or linux drive's boot partition. Unfortunately I decided to avoid fooling
> with MBR and opted for the later.
>
> The lilo installation ended up with failure. Everything else went fine.
> I created boot diskette. I then realized I was no longer able to boot
> Win98. Everybody in my household jumped on me!! My wife wanted to search
> webs about her stock investment, my kid wanted to play starcraft with his
> folks, ....
>
> I hoped to restore MBR by executing 'fdisk /MBR' under MSDOS but I was
> surprised to learn that all my Windows rescue and MSDOS diskettes failed
> to even boot. PC tried to boot from the floppies but hang after reading/
> loading a few blocks.
>
> When I mounted on to /dev/hda1, I could see that all Win98 directories
> and files were still intact. I just do not know why drive/A broke when I
> tried my best < which was obviously not good enough :-( > not to disturb
> its MBR.
>
> I would appreciate any advice that can pull me out of this mess.
>
> 1) What corruptions on drive/A and how to restore it??
>
> 2) I configured lilo to boot either linux and win98 but the later never
> came up - it hang just like when I booted off diskettes. Could you
> offer me a copy of /etc/lilo.conf to compare. My copy is at home.
>
> 3) I configured printer OK but not my sound card (Turtle Beach Montogo II
> and Altec Lansing 495). sndconfig autoprobe concluded it was Altec
> ADA305 and mentioned it is not supported by Linux yet. I tried without
> probe but there were only 2 Turtle Beach choices and my Montego II was
> not ont the list. I tried both and they all ended up in errors.
>
> Does it mean I'm out of luck as far as sound card is concerned?
>
> 4) Does Linux support HP 6200C scanner?? If affirmative, how?
>
> 5) I have MSN connection which I usually use their 'MSN Internet Access'
> tool to connect. Could and how I connect to MSN from Linux??
>
> Please asnwer to my e-mail address. Thanks for kind assistance.
>
> Rgds somphong
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ulf Junghans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.x,de.comp.os.unix.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Geforce2 Go and XFree 4.0.3
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:42:02 +0200
ftp1.detonator.nvidia.com -> Last Driver for Nvidia Card
the Display Settings can you find in the X86config on /etc or /etc/X11
The Error is a miss Config in this File.
Ulf Junghans
------------------------------
From: Glenn Zenker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Linux pcmica problem
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:12:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I loaded Mandrake 8.0 on my IBM laptop and when I boot up, it recognizes my
pcmcia card, my link light on my dongle is green and the network settings
look fine, but I can't get out on the network. I need to run the command:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.18 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1
Why? This was configured in the installation.
Any ideas??
Remove NO SPAM in replyto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Subject: Re: Is this fixable?
Date: 5 Jun 2001 18:22:23 GMT
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> experiment. I had to do the install run twice because a few things got
>
>Unfortunately one that I refuse to carry out :-). Been there, done
>that, in general, especially with respect to libdb. Changing libdb is
>known deadly to human life. I'm really not going to do it with libc.
>I simply don't believe any tales of survival.
Well, that's why I suggested a chroot. Lots of people have dist-upgraded
cleanly from potato, though; it's a routine operation, and if the libc6
upgrade had caused problems we'd have heard about it, loudly. As I
understand it, the point of the symbol versioning introduced in glibc
2.1 was to make upgrades *less* painful, not more painful.
libdb has certainly been a mess in the past, as it used to be sort of
half part of glibc, and ugh. That's mostly sorted out now.
>> No, I wouldn't think that trying to get them to coexist is a good idea.
>
>Awww ... OK, I'll compile libc 2.2 against libc 2.1, how's that? Then
>I'll swap them, while in a su static shell, with my finger on the
>static copy of ln .... how's that?
Each to their own. :) I use distributed packages because I don't have
time for that sort of thing.
>BTW, the new man-db is working well.
Good to hear it.
>But I had to move up tons of stuff, principally perl to 5.6,
Yeah, I was lazy and used debhelper 3. I might change this.
>in order to compile it. And yes, I see that it needed a libdb2, which
>is probably from where I remember the last nasty experience with libdb.
>
> Maintainer: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Version: 2.3.17.1-5
> ...
> Depends: groff (>> 1.15-3.ja.3) | jgroff (>> 1.15), bsdmainutils, libc6
> (>= 2.1.2), libdb2 (>= 1:2.4.14-7)
> Conflicts: man, suidmanager (<< 0.50)
>
>in case you want to compare the computed requirements against yours ... I
>imagine my set is lower.
No doubt. The binaries you produced really will only need that, though
(they look like a fairly standard set produced by compiling on Debian
stable), whereas I'm compiling against unstable. Source dependencies are
usually substantially looser than binary dependencies.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"Logic is about flogging a dead horse." - Computer Science lecturer
------------------------------
From: Dave Berntson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat Newbie -- Can I do this?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:02:27 -0500
On 5 Jun 2001 07:46:14 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Ballai) wrote:
>Being fed up with Win 98, I want to give Red Hat a go with the thought
>of eventually leaving Gates and his evil empire behind.
>
>Here's what I have: Win 98 installed on an IBM Aptiva k6-2 300 with 64
>mb built in LT WIN modem Kensington Turbo Mouse and Epson 600 printer.
>Can I leave this undisturbed and install RH Linux 7.1 on a partition
>and still get on line with earthlink and have my peripherals working?
>Alternatively, is there a way to run WIN 98 in emulation on RH Linux,
>so I can use it as necessary and be done with it? I can always add
>more memory if need be.
You CAN dual boot to Windows 98 or Linux. You can install linux on your
current hard drive by partitioning the Win 98 on the "front" part of your
hard drive, without losing any of the current settings and data.
Partitioning for a dual boot is a little complicated, but I have done it
twice, and had no problem. It might be worth it to buy one of those books
(at the book store), which has an included CD of linux. These books give
general instructions, but they also are targeted to the CD that comes with
the book.
I don't know if your computer is ideal for linux, but, generally, linux
supports everything except obscure or cutting-edge new hardware. There are
only a few "win modems" that are supported by linux, so I would bet you have
to buy a hardware modem...( external modems are often recommended).
I encourage you take a look at Art's FAQ, which was posted on the 3rd (right
here on this newsgroup).
You can use fips to partition your hard drive without losing any of the
settings and data. Then you can use Disk Druid (during the linux
installation) to add linux partitions.
How big is your hard drive and how much of it is taken up with win98?
db
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel 2.4.4 does not see all of 1 GB memory.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:59:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.setup Alaattin Caliskan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone please point me in the right direction to fix this problem.
Recompile the kernel with support for that much ram.
Peter
------------------------------
From: KCmaniac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: booting Linux on hdb
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:06:34 -0400
Can anyone tell me how to boot a linux system on hdb (a slave disk).
The following is the first part of the partion table for that drive.
hdb1 Primary DOS
hdb2 Primary Linux /boot
hdb3 Primary Linux swap
hdb4 Extended
hdb5 Logical Linux /
*
*
*
I have done all the reading I know and it didn't help a bit.
Can it be done?
Thanks.
RLH
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.setup.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Setup Digest
******************************
