Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:20:25 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@scotty.masternet.it> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Installing Linux (and bootblocks) Message-ID: <19990721102025.J84734@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990720193237.019b90e0@194.184.65.4>; from Gianmarco Giovannelli on Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 07:39:06PM %2B0200 References: <37931080.C5917A44@giovannelli.it> <XFMail.990718043632.conrads@home.com> <4.2.0.58.19990718101705.00ccb720@localhost> <4.1.19990718224838.01324160@194.184.65.4> <19990719134536.K65436@freebie.lemis.com> <19990719095612.41282@ns.int.ftf.net> <19990719172747.A72625@freebie.lemis.com> <37931080.C5917A44@giovannelli.it> <19990720092427.J72885@freebie.lemis.com> <4.1.19990720193237.019b90e0@194.184.65.4>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 20 July 1999 at 19:39:06 +0200, Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote: > At 20/07/99, you wrote: > >>> I'd like to open another topic: >>> Why bootblock won't boot any Linux installation except Debian ? >> >> It boots my RedHat 5.2 just fine. > > The problem is that with a lot of distribution the kernel image of linux go > beyond the 1024 cyl... > Debian perhaps was the only the put the kernl before that cyl. (it was the > smallest to install) That depends more on your disk layout and your BIOS than the distribution. But it seems that RedHat puts the kernel in the /boot directory, so it could end up further from the start of the partition. On the other hand, Debian appears to install the kernel at the end, as an afterthought. The first time round, it didn't get installed, and I had to boot from floppy. > This was due to how I partition the HD (but I was not aware when I make it > :-) , to finish before the 1024 cyl the partition has to be only 38mb :-) Certainly one general problem with Linux is the lack of a second-level partitioning scheme. Linux uses up 2 of my 4 Microsoft partitions, and I only have a single file system. > Now I solved using as / a 100mb free I have on the 2nd HD and using that > space remained on the first HD for a Linux (in a round robin order I tried > every distribs, because you have to know the enemy you face off :-) /usr. > >>> I have tried: >>> Redhat 5.2, 6.0 >>> Suse 6.1 >>> Slackware 3.6 >>> TurboLinux 2.0 >>> Caldera 1.3 >>> Stampede Linux >>> Debian 2.1 >>> >>> (a little OT to say thanks to Jordan for been able to make the best >>> install I have seen. FreeBSD is far better than all these , it's easy >>> and simple...) >> >> Agreed. I was surprised how bumpy the RedHat installation was. > > Red hat is by far the simplest and most clear... have you tried the > others ??? Yes, I tried Deviant^H^H^H^H^Hbian. I preferred its installation. > We are really riding the best horse... :-) Certainly I'm surprised how well the FreeBSD installation measures up. Doesn't Slackware have something similar? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990721102025.J84734>