Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:45:06 -0800 From: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com> To: <questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks Message-ID: <009301c05b49$de15ba40$40461418@salem1.or.home.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] i purchased freebsd about two months ago. i have not yet been able to get it to run. i went through the trouble and expense of buying the power-pak 4.0 so that i would have the 800 page handbook. (i wanted freebsd because i thought it would be the last system i would ever need to buy.) i also wanted the full 10-cd collection of software. the fact of the matter is that the cd's were worthless to me because freebsd would not recognize my multifunction soundcard as a valid scsi device; which by the way, both versions of linux (suse and mandrake) and windows nt were able to use without any difficulty whatsoever. i have found the repeated claims of freebsd superiority to be a bunch of crap! i have absolutely no idea how something so superior to windows and linux is unable to recognize the presense of my adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor on my soundblaster 16 card. maybe it's too beneath freebsd to recognize my lowly implementation of scsi. i knew that freebsd claimed to be mature; maybe poor vision is also the side-effect of this protracted maturity. either that or this maturity has imbued you with yet another ailment common to advancing age. that ailment is arrogance. that seems to be the only explanation for this; as the common response that i have received from many but not all, has been one of arrogance and contempt that i would dare to question the godlike qualities of freebsd. so let me make it personal. there is no problem with my scsi card. i have had three working operating system to prove it. the problem is with the software (and it's developers) that freebsd uses. now you may like to claim that linux is a developer system. but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to be doing a much (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of drivers than freebsd. i was forced to use the ftp server as my source of installation; negating the very purpose for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything that is in the power-pak can be had on the net). after installing the system from the net, it ran just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86 4.0, which then made my system inoperable. after that i was never able to get it to run again. quite some time later after all of this, i tried to create bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd. when i went to reboot my system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel on the floppies. you make sense of it. i created the disks using a commandline instruction within NT. the first disks that i made were done with linux. as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot revert to it to make the bootdisks for freebsd. so either i have a freebsd installation system which runs from NT without rebooting, or it's unusable. i mean let's get real. if linux can (and does) allow for it (linux) to be run on a windows (not NT) formatted disk, what the hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the same and better (as you so fraudulently claim). and don't tell me how poor of a solution the UMSDOS is. certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there is no excuse for there not being an even better system available from freebsd; and especially for NT. since NT is the highend of the windows system, it only makes sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SOLUTIONS for NT. i don't want to hear excuses. I WANT RESULTS! NT has something that the standard UFS does not have. it has an integrated compressed filesystem. with it, i have increased my storage space by no less than 35%. if you had the same feature, i would have 5GB's of effective space instead of only 3.7GB's available for freebsd. but at this point in time, i am not willing to install freebsd until the aforemention criteria are met. if someone knows of a single package that i can install on my existing NT platform, that will allow for the seemless operation of unix programs as though they were native windows applications, i for one would like to hear about it. i just went to the windows site and found something they call WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 2.0. i don't know how long it had been around or how good it is. i found it by simply typing `windowsnt unix' into my browsers address bar to get a search on those keywords. http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServicesforUNIX[759]/ProductOverview.asp quite frankly, if i find the means to compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome for NT, i would probably never look back to linux or freebsd. i have already found numerous unix components to run under windows. and once i have learned how to use all of them, that will probably settle once and for all the question of which system to use. ATT and others make various products which allow for the running of unix programs in a windows environment. i had some of them installed before i reinstalled NT and thereby erased those systems. i am now deciding which ones to reinstall. so the bottomline is this. when i am able to install freebsd from a running windows nt system without the use of bootdisks (which supply the means to create and write to UFS, then and only then will i be willing to use freebsd. i installed NT (six days) after becoming thoughroughly frustated with freebsd. i need to have a completely functional heterogenious operating environment. one which runs windows nt and freebsd on the same computer (preferably with only one filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED). if freebsd is not capable of being installed from a running NT-environment without having to be rebooted, that is an absolutely indisputable indicator that freebsd cannot operate cohesively within an NT-system. it's not up to microsoft to provide the means to read and write between NTFS and UFS without the question of damaging either system. freebsd is the alien, not MS. when freebsd generates the code that allows NT to write to UFS and UFS to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, then and only then will freebsd be a legitamate addition to my NT environment. until then, it's just crap! [-- Attachment #2 --] <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS">i purchased freebsd about two months ago. i have not yet been able to get it to run. i went through the trouble and expense of buying the power-pak 4.0 so that i would have the 800 page handbook. (i wanted freebsd because i thought it would be the last system i would ever need to buy.) i also wanted the full 10-cd collection of software. the fact of the matter is that the cd's were worthless to me because freebsd would not recognize my multifunction soundcard as a valid scsi device; which by the way, both versions of linux (suse and mandrake) and windows nt were able to use without any difficulty whatsoever. i have found the repeated claims of freebsd superiority to be a bunch of crap!</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS">i have absolutely no idea how something so superior to windows and linux is unable to recognize the presense of my adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor on my soundblaster 16 card. maybe it's too beneath freebsd to recognize my lowly implementation of scsi. i knew that freebsd claimed to be mature; maybe poor vision is also the side-effect of this protracted maturity. either that or this maturity has imbued you with yet another ailment common to advancing age. that ailment is arrogance. that seems to be the only explanation for this; as the common response that i have received from many but not all, has been one of arrogance and contempt that i would dare to question the godlike qualities of freebsd. so let me make it personal. there is no problem with my scsi card. i have had three working operating system to prove it. the problem is with the software (and it's developers) that freebsd uses. now you may like to claim that linux is a developer system. but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to be doing a much (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of drivers than freebsd.</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>i was forced to use the ftp server as my source of installation; negating the very purpose for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything that is in the power-pak can be had on the net). after installing the system from the net, it ran just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86 4.0, which then made my system inoperable. after that i was never able to get it to run again. quite some time later after all of this, i tried to create bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd. when i went to reboot my system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel on the floppies. you make sense of it. i created the disks using a commandline instruction within NT. the first disks that i made were done with linux. as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot revert to it to make the bootdisks for freebsd. so either i have a freebsd installation system which runs from NT without rebooting, or it's unusable. i mean let's get real. if linux can (and does) allow for it (linux) to be run on a windows (not NT) formatted disk, what the hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the same and better (as you so fraudulently claim). and don't tell me how poor of a solution the UMSDOS is. certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there is no excuse for there not being an even better system available from freebsd; and especially for NT. since NT is the highend of the windows system, it only makes sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SOLUTIONS for NT. i don't want to hear excuses. I WANT RESULTS!</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS">NT has something that the standard UFS does not have. it has an integrated compressed filesystem. with it, i have increased my storage space by no less than 35%. if you had the same feature, i would have 5GB's of effective space instead of only 3.7GB's available for freebsd. but at this point in time, i am not willing to install freebsd until the aforemention criteria are met. if someone knows of a single package that i can install on my existing NT platform, that will allow for the seemless operation of unix programs as though they were native windows applications, i for one would like to hear about it. i just went to the windows site and found something they call WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 2.0. i don't know how long it had been around or how good it is. i found it by simply typing `windowsnt unix' into my browsers address bar to get a search on those keywords.</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"><A href="http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServicesforUNIX[759]/ProductOverview.asp">http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServicesforUNIX[759]/ProductOverview.asp</A></FONT></STRONG></DIV>; <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS">quite frankly, if i find the means to compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome for NT, i would probably never look back to linux or freebsd. i have already found numerous unix components to run under windows. and once i have learned how to use all of them, that will probably settle once and for all the question of which system to use. ATT and others make various products which allow for the running of unix programs in a windows environment. i had some of them installed before i reinstalled NT and thereby erased those systems. i am now deciding which ones to reinstall.</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS">so the bottomline is this. when i am able to install freebsd from a running windows nt system without the use of bootdisks (which supply the means to create and write to UFS, then and only then will i be willing to use freebsd. i installed NT (six days) after becoming thoughroughly frustated with freebsd. i need to have a completely functional heterogenious operating environment. one which runs windows nt and freebsd on the same computer (preferably with only one filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED). if freebsd is not capable of being installed from a running NT-environment without having to be rebooted, that is an absolutely indisputable indicator that freebsd cannot operate cohesively within an NT-system. it's not up to microsoft to provide the means to read and write between NTFS and UFS without the question of damaging either system. freebsd is the alien, not MS. when freebsd generates the code that allows NT to write to UFS and UFS to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, then and only then will freebsd be a legitamate addition to my NT environment. until then, it's just crap!</FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?009301c05b49$de15ba40$40461418>