Need to install Windows 2000 from scratch to HDDs with Debian/Linux - Forums Linux |
- Need to install Windows 2000 from scratch to HDDs with Debian/Linux
- PCI: system does not support PCI.
- Make the second disk bootable
- CUPS in SuSE...
- XP tolerance of partition scheme changes
- burning cd permissions problem
- Red Hat Linux wouldn't boot up after a day.
- Any good access to EXT2 partitions from Windows (2K)
- Bind raw device in FC3?
- xterm _entire_ screen blinking
- How to determine kernel compatibility with distribution?
- J2RE crashes Firefox in Fedora FC3
- FEDORA CORE 3 & USB
- Building a linux cluster with 2 machines
- Problem with SCSI HP CD Writer+ 9200
- To RAID or Not to RAID
- Screen resolution settings, KDE only
- Fedora Linux FC3 - adding old RH9 disk
- How to map weird keyboard keys to arbitrary actions?
- Install on small HDD
- reallocating space to partitions
- Xterm/Login hangs after starting remote service
- cable modem reset
- Grub error suse 9.2
| Need to install Windows 2000 from scratch to HDDs with Debian/Linux Posted: 17 Jan 2005 10:50 AM PST In message <net>, com writes More information needed. What partitions and mount points do you currently use? Ideally, we need the print outputs of fdisk for the drives, plus the output of df. You may not need to resize any partitions, some copying plus use of fdisk and tweaking of /etc/fstab may be enough. OK, this is a bit scary, but not as much as resizing Linux partitions with Windows tools. You should certainly backup all data before you start. One of the live CDs (Knoppix etc.) is useful for doing this kind of work, as you cannot do it from inside Debian. Tom's Root and Boot floppy (tomsrtbt) is fine for this, but it's a bit unfriendly if you haven't used it before. A W2K installation will need 2G minimum for itself, plus whatever you are doing with it, say 5G total. *It must have the use of the first primary partition it can see (NTFS, FAT or FAT32), of at least a megabyte, on /dev/hda*. This may be the 5G partition if this is convenient, or a separate one. I use a FAT partition of about 20MB for this, as it contains the Windows boot.ini file, which may need to be edited from outside Windows, and NTFS is not a good idea here. The main W2K partition needs to be NTFS to make use of file permissions and some other features. Windows really ought to go on a multi-boot system first, as it is likely to trample the Master Boot Record of /dev/hda. The NT variants are much more polite than the domestic (Win9x) types, so if W2K finds the MBR already in use by something that isn't a Win9x or DOS, it may not overwrite it. I'm not sure, but you need to be prepared to re-run your Linux boot manager (lilo or grub) which means you need a rescue floppy or CD. You could instead use whatever distro you used to move the partitions, but you need to know how to do that, whereas this is exactly what a rescue disc for a particular installation is designed to do. It's not difficult either way, but try it before the W2K installation. You also need to edit and re-run the boot manager to include the new W2K installation in its start-up menu. It is possible to do it the other way around, to let W2K have the MBR and control the boot, and to edit C:\boot.ini to include the Linux installation, but I've never done this and can't offer advice. -- Joe |
| PCI: system does not support PCI. Posted: 17 Jan 2005 06:13 AM PST Maguire wrote: .... it's in bad taste to submit such as long posting without solicitation. as a rule, you should post it to a website and point folks to it. if this is for your thesis, shouldn't you be compelled to harvest your own answer through research, without asking for an answer? -- << http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >> Heavy, adj.: Seduced by the chocolate side of the force. |
| Posted: 17 Jan 2005 01:34 AM PST com wrote: .... two approaches. * if you have a floppy, create a boot floppy. (this is the EASIEST - be sure to make two floppy copies) * install the boot loader to the second drive and merely provide a chain-loader stanza on whatever install is on the first drive. this way, if drive one is unavailable, make the second drive active and the boot loader will be executed as usual. -- << http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >> Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. - Walt Kelly |
| Posted: 17 Jan 2005 12:20 AM PST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: .... I'd say that 99% of your constant/incessant whining about YaST is unfounded and another 99% of what you say in response about it is untrue. Just something I've noticed. Here are some facts. The "authors of every package in the world" think they know how to do administration "correctly" and in almost EVERY case, they do their administration DIFFERENTLY. YaST is an attempt at unifying the mess caused by the high-ego centric world of developers who are more interested in building an empire than something that integrates well with other pieces of software. If you want to spend 90% of your time administrating everything by hand is a plethora of configuration files spread throughout the universe, then use Red Hat or some other distribution. YaST is an amazing tools that attempts to do amazing things and yes... sometimes, it doesn't do things quite right due to the ever changing desires of developers with different ideas on what is "right". SUSE's is trying to create an environment that at least feels like it is consistent. If you don't like, grab something else. |
| XP tolerance of partition scheme changes Posted: 16 Jan 2005 04:12 PM PST dmorgan1 wrote: vary Depends -- see below. where Thus, this current 160GB hd will have _no_ MS partition types? Ie., no partition on _this_ disk will be used even as a VFAT/ro NTFS data exchange partition? [snip] Depends on what you mean by "correct". System/boot drive? [snip] If you want to eradicate MS partition types from hda (including changing the type tag for the extended partition to 0x85 Linux extended partition?), then XP will largely ignore hda entirely. That leaves you with Xp on hdb -- not the "usual" or MS recommended placement. Many around here report trouble free use of XP on hdb, but I cannot say -- I _always_ place MS OSes on hda since I don't trust the OS code and certainly don't trust 3rd party software likely installed on the MS/XP partition. Linux is much more flexible and easier to move about than XP, so why risk the trouble? That's my attitude -- yamv ;-) MS OSes normally assign C: to the system boot partition and assign other "recognized" partitions as mjt wrote (IIRC). XP can be "forced" to map drive letters more than previous versions -- but why bother unless it's necessary? I like the idea of keeping Linux wholly and completely separate from XP with an additional disk drive. Whether XP on hda or hdb is your call. Do note that XP can be picky about the hd being moved after the initial install. And with a VFAT partition on XP's drive you would have a "common r/w" partition if you need to move files in both directions -- from Linux to XP and vice versa. And _that_ partition would also be separate from the Linux installation. Now that leaves you with a rather untidy partition layout on hda. I assume you intended/hoped to use the leftover partition space for Linux. With such a large hard disk I would definitely recommend a new scheme altogether. Eg., if hda2 is your /boot, it is much larger than you'll ever need -- 100MB tops if you're in the habit of keeping _every_ kernel version ever used to boot your system. There is much to be said for assigning separate patitions to /home, /usr, /var, and /tmp, as well as /boot, / [root], and your LVM partitions. In fact, with just one or two machines to take care of, I recommend that people just leave unpartitioned free space to allow for future needs. For most people /home is the one that will inevitably grow while the others work quite well with fixed, appropriately sized partitions. Here are some MS links to get you started with XP disk partitioning: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=313348 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307844 hth, prg email above disabled |
| burning cd permissions problem Posted: 16 Jan 2005 06:40 AM PST Novello wrote: Clear the suid root on cdrecord and cdrdao. The new kernels don't like it. Roby |
| Red Hat Linux wouldn't boot up after a day. Posted: 16 Jan 2005 01:45 AM PST On 2005-01-16, Joe Jess <com> wrote: It looks like you have a problem with the user quota system. The easy way is to disable it if you are not using for real. BTW, RH 8 is way old, you'd better get something more up to date. Davide -- The Weak Lusethropic Principle states: "As more idiot-proof software becomes avalable, more idiots are able to use computers. Idiot-proof software did not make or cause computer lusers; it simple allowed lusers to use computers where they could not before." --Ben Cantrick |
| Any good access to EXT2 partitions from Windows (2K) Posted: 15 Jan 2005 10:39 PM PST Norm Dresner wrote: ..... Nothing to worry. It works here with XPSP2, readonly. But then I use captive-ntfs from linux, which captures the native XP/2K NTFS drivers and uses them in a sandbox, to give unrestricted write access to ntfs. Though that might not work with XPSP2 drivers anymore, but I got mine installed when using SP1, and it still works fine. -- Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress *to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**React ivate*MS*software. Linux woodpecker.homnet.at 2.6.10-mm1[LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962] |
| Posted: 15 Jan 2005 09:57 PM PST Heads up for anyone else who network installs OS's and needs to deal with SuSE's new 9.2 distribution. They've merged the i386 and x86_64 distributions onto a single shared DVD and source tree, and renamed the kernel and initrd for bootinig x86_64 to vmlinuz64 and initrd64. That drove me *nuts* when I network installed an x86_64 and it turned up with i586 kernel, because I hand't configured the network tools to use the new package names. |
| xterm _entire_ screen blinking Posted: 15 Jan 2005 07:19 PM PST Bill Marcum <com.urgent> wrote: e.g., resources visualBell and visualBellDelay -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net |
| How to determine kernel compatibility with distribution? Posted: 15 Jan 2005 02:54 PM PST "Davide Bianchi" <net> wrote in message news:onlyforfun.net... As soon as I can free up some time, I'm going to create a half-dozen different boot HDs for my rackmount embedded systems and I'll try it on one of them. I'm not really worried about (most of) the IP stuff because the primary targets for these systems uses only very primitive Ethernet stuff, but the modutils are a worry because my systems rely very heavily on modularized kernel additions to handle custom hardware -- in one system we're flying we have almost 18 loadable kernel modules running together with about the same number of user-space programs. If there's any incompatibility, we'll probably find it. And we'll report it too. Thanks Norm |
| J2RE crashes Firefox in Fedora FC3 Posted: 14 Jan 2005 09:15 PM PST net wrote: The README that comes with the package tells you to do just what you did |
| Posted: 14 Jan 2005 02:58 PM PST On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:34:48 +0100, Peter T. Breuer wrote: The OP doesn't need to. Fedora core 3 comes with the functionality-just plug in and double click on computer, then mount the drive through a context menu or by double clicking on it. Kind Regards. |
| Building a linux cluster with 2 machines Posted: 14 Jan 2005 01:16 PM PST WiseOldMan wrote: He can easily make an OpenMosix cluster with two machines, but maybe it's too much for this. With VNC he can run applications with the crossover cable or just ssh to the second machine and run applications. -- Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez Director Tecnico de bgSEC com bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos http://www.bgsec.com ESPAÑA The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow Roman candles. -- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road" |
| Problem with SCSI HP CD Writer+ 9200 Posted: 14 Jan 2005 09:31 AM PST Ok, I already tried the device with another server with the same result. Unplugged, the device's green light is flashing for a while and finally turn red forever. Same behavior as plugged. So, I guess it is actually dead and need to be serviced. ;-( On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:34:49 -0500, % wrote : |
| Posted: 14 Jan 2005 07:24 AM PST "Steve Wilder" <com> wrote in message news:47b94$41e7ef4c$d88ce6f3$meganewsservers.com.. . If you need really stable RedHat or similar commercial grade support but are cheap, www.whiteboxlinux.org. If you want leading/bleeding edge, Fedora Core 3. |
| Screen resolution settings, KDE only Posted: 14 Jan 2005 02:42 AM PST mjt wrote: Just like I said, screen resolution questions are usually dumb. I was fooling around in Control Center, but before I changed the x configuration so I couldn't select 1280 x 1024. Duh. Thanks. -- Tom F. There are no numerals or underscores in my address. |
| Fedora Linux FC3 - adding old RH9 disk Posted: 13 Jan 2005 03:37 PM PST Thanks for your help, you saved me from trashing my machine in error! Adding my second disk (RH9 disk) =========================== I physically connected 2nd disk as slave (ie RH9 disk) Rebooted into Fedora Linux Got error messages about duplicate label /BOOT 2nd disk is known as hdb1 (boot section) hdb2 (main section) Relabelled 2 clashing labels e2label /dev/hdb1 /bootRH9 e2label /dev/hdb2 /RH9 Edited fstab file added 3rd line ie linked label RH9 to disk directory /rh9 /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/RH9 /rh9 ext3 defaults 1 2 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 Finally created mount point for new disk mkdir /rh9 Rebooted machine. Could cd /rh9 ! Now all my data from my old RH9 disk appears within this directory (I was not interested in accessing the boot section of my old RH9 disk.) |
| How to map weird keyboard keys to arbitrary actions? Posted: 13 Jan 2005 02:53 PM PST Steve Mading wrote: Yes in theory, possibly in practice. Many years ago my employer purchased some Key Tronic KB 3270 Plus keyboards. These keyboards are programmable. A MS-DOS program, supplied with the keyboard (and available from Key Tonic's web site, I have just now checked) was used to program the keys with any character or character string one wished. In my employer's case, various accented characters and commonly used typesetting commands were stored onto the keys. Subsequently, my employer was sold to another company who had a different method of typesetting and threw out the existing keyboards and computers. This is how I obtained them. I thought I would use these keyboards with my, then new, Pentium class computer running Windows 98. Well, the keyboard works with the default key layout and the MS-DOS program runs in a DOS window *but* the program did not communicate with the keyboard :( After a call to Key Tronic's technical support I learned that the keyboard interface used on the motherboard had changed from that which was used on 80386 motherboards and this is what prevented the program from communicating with the keyboard. Worse, the new style interface did not have a way for the computer to send data to the keyboard. Possibly this situation has changed again and perhaps a call to Key Tronic or other keyboard manufacturer would be worthwhile. And before you ask. No, you can't plug the keyboard into a 80386 machine, program the keyboard then disconnect it and plug it into a Pentium machine. Well, you can, but the keyboard reverts to the default layout when you disconnect it from the 80386. Gord Torrie ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| Posted: 13 Jan 2005 09:29 AM PST On 01/13/2005 10:59 PM, Maria Ripanykhazova wrote: [snip] Try *Ubuntu*, both a Live CD and Install CD images are available from: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ You may request free Ubuntu CD's online at: http://shipit.ubuntulinux.org/ To install Ubuntu, you should have at least 32 MB of RAM, at least 1.8 GB space on your hard disk for a standard Ubuntu desktop system, or at least 350 MB for a minimal custom installation. I have not tested these fully as yet, but their Live CD is based on Morphix, which again is based on Knoppix otherwise. Hope that helps. Good luck! -- Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Anu's Linux@HOME Distros: Knoppix, Fedora, FreeBSD More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/ |
| reallocating space to partitions Posted: 13 Jan 2005 07:31 AM PST mjt wrote: .... i failed to mention this: http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/sys_req.html System Requirements Windows® XP Home Edition/Professional Windows 2000 Professional Windows NT WS/Me/98/98SE -- << http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >> It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa. |
| Xterm/Login hangs after starting remote service Posted: 13 Jan 2005 12:01 AM PST Laurenz Albe wrote: stdout, behaviour. Thanks that made it work! |
| Posted: 12 Jan 2005 05:32 PM PST On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:48:44 -0800, prg wrote: <snip> LOL! Yessir! <snip> Yea, i had a look at the man pages for dhclient and the seperate one for dhclient.conf. Fedora has a sample config file, but it is a _scary_ thing to even look at! Spotted it in the sample. I'm hoping _that_ one line is the only necessary one, so far, so good. <snip> Ahh, the penny drops! :-) I had my box setup to boot automagically at night, start the edonkey client and switch off in the morning. Can you imagine my frustration when it had done nothing, all because my mate wanted to play a game sometime in the afternoon? Thank you so much for the info. Only to test it now :-) |
| Posted: 12 Jan 2005 04:53 PM PST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Sure. I didn't mean to imply grub wouldn't need to be reconfigured. Certainly it must be. I'm just saying, as a point of general philosophy and functionality _linux_ (including the whole distribution) doesn't care where it resides. Absolutely, the boot loader cares where it is and must be set up correctly, but that's just par for the course. In older hardware, the kernel had to be on a primary partition, but I don't even think that's true anymore. Though I always make a separate /boot primary partition anyway. -- Tom F. There are no numerals or underscores in my address. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from TextNData Forums - Linux To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
