From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Nov 30 19:50:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A05837B400 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from c559307a ([24.20.70.64]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001201035038.ETXS13245.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c559307a> for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:50:38 -0800 Message-ID: <009301c05b49$de15ba40$40461418@salem1.or.home.com> From: "xavian anderson macpherson" To: Subject: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:45:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0066_01C05AFD.A878AB00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C05AFD.A878AB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/WindowsServicesfo= rUNIX[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! ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C05AFD.A878AB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
i purchased freebsd about two = months=20 ago.  i have not yet been able to get it to run.  i went = through the=20 trouble and expense of buying the power-pak 4.0 so that i would have the = 800=20 page handbook.  (i wanted freebsd because i thought it would be the = last=20 system i would ever need to buy.)  i also wanted the full = 10-cd=20 collection of software.  the fact of the matter is that the cd's = were=20 worthless to me because freebsd would not recognize my multifunction = soundcard=20 as a valid scsi device;  which by the way, both versions of linux = (suse and=20 mandrake) and windows nt were able to use without any difficulty=20 whatsoever.  i have found the repeated claims of = freebsd superiority=20 to be a bunch of crap!
 
i have absolutely no idea how = something=20 so superior to windows and linux is unable to recognize the presense of = my=20 adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor on my soundblaster 16 card.  maybe = it's too=20 beneath freebsd to recognize my lowly implementation of scsi.  i = knew that=20 freebsd claimed to be mature; maybe poor vision is also the side-effect = of this=20 protracted maturity.  either that or this maturity has imbued you = with yet=20 another ailment common to advancing age.  that ailment is=20 arrogance.   that seems to be the only explanation for = this;  as=20 the common response that i have received from many but not all, has been = one of=20 arrogance and contempt that i would dare to question the godlike = qualities of=20 freebsd.  so let me make it personal.  there is no problem = with my=20 scsi card.  i have had three working operating system to prove = it. =20 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. =20 but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to be doing = a much=20 (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of drivers = than=20 freebsd.
 
i = was forced=20 to use the ftp server as my source of installation; negating the very = purpose=20 for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything that is in the = power-pak can=20 be had on the net).  after installing the system from the = net, it ran=20 just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86 4.0, which then = made my=20 system inoperable.  after that i was never able to get it to run=20 again.  quite some time later after all of this, i tried to create=20 bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd.  when i went to reboot = my=20 system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel on = the=20 floppies.  you make sense of it.  i created the disks using a=20 commandline instruction within NT.  the first disks that i made = were done=20 with linux.  as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot = revert to=20 it to make the bootdisks for freebsd.  so either i have a freebsd=20 installation system which runs from NT  without rebooting, or = it's=20 unusable.  i mean let's get real.  if linux can (and does) = allow for=20 it (linux) to be run on a windows (not NT) formatted disk, = what the=20 hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the same and better (as you so=20 fraudulently claim).  and don't tell me how poor of a solution the = UMSDOS=20 is.  certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there is no excuse for = there not=20 being an even better system available from freebsd; and especially for=20 NT.  since NT is the highend of the windows system, it only = makes=20 sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SOLUTIONS = for=20 NT.  i don't want to hear excuses.  I WANT=20 RESULTS!
 
NT has something that the = standard UFS=20 does not have.  it has an integrated compressed = filesystem.  with=20 it, i have increased my storage space by no less than 35%.  if you = had the=20 same feature, i would have 5GB's  of effective space instead = of only=20 3.7GB's available for freebsd.  but at this point in time, i = am not=20 willing to install freebsd until the aforemention criteria are = met.  if=20 someone knows of a single package that i can install on my existing NT = platform,=20 that will allow for the seemless operation of unix programs as though = they were=20 native windows applications, i for one would like to hear about = it.  i=20 just went to the windows site and found something they call WINDOWS = SERVICES FOR=20 UNIX 2.0.  i don't know how long it had been around or how good it=20 is.  i found it by simply typing `windowsnt unix' into my browsers = address=20 bar to get a search on those keywords.
http://shop.microsoft.com/Product= s/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServicesforUNIX[759]/ProductOverview.asp
 
quite frankly, if i find the = means to=20 compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome for NT, i would probably never look = back to=20 linux or freebsd.  i have already found numerous unix components to = run=20 under windows.  and once i have learned how to use all of them, = that will=20 probably settle once and for all the question of which system to use. = ATT and=20 others make various products which allow for the running of unix = programs in a=20 windows environment.  i had some of them installed before i = reinstalled NT=20 and thereby erased those systems.  i am now deciding which ones to=20 reinstall.
 
so the bottomline is = this.  when i=20 am able to install freebsd from a running windows nt system without the = use of=20 bootdisks (which supply the means to create = and write to UFS,=20 then and only then will i be willing to use freebsd.  i installed = NT (six=20 days) after becoming thoughroughly frustated with freebsd.  i = need to=20 have a completely functional heterogenious operating environment.  = one=20 which runs windows nt and freebsd on the same computer (preferably with = only one=20 filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED).  if freebsd is not capable of being = installed=20 from a running NT-environment without having to be rebooted, that is an=20 absolutely indisputable indicator that freebsd cannot operate cohesively = within=20 an NT-system. it's not up to microsoft to provide the means to read and=20 write between NTFS and UFS without the question of damaging = either=20 system.  freebsd is the alien, not MS.  when freebsd generates = the=20 code that allows NT to write to UFS and UFS to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, = then=20 and only then will freebsd be a legitamate addition to my NT=20 environment.  until then, it's just=20 crap!
------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C05AFD.A878AB00-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message