Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:30:54 -0500 From: Jim Conner <jconner@enterit.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@freebsd.org>, <advocacy@freebsd.org>, <tagdot57@aol.com>, <mongor@mail.com>, <onybear@aol.com> Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001202003001.02a68968@mail.enterit.com> In-Reply-To: <14888.13097.187777.80105@guru.mired.org> References: <004b01c05bec$a79cbb50$40461418@salem1.or.home.com> <14887.12057.451329.642265@guru.mired.org> <004b01c05bec$a79cbb50$40461418@salem1.or.home.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
We are the borg! You will be assimilated... sound familiar? =P Blow it out your arse punk! As for me in my house, I shall use a Unix OS! - Jim At 05:24 PM 12/1/2000 -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: >So go whine at the people you gave the $60 to, not the *volunteers* >who are on the -questions list. You might as well drop me from the CC >list - the only whining children I have to deal with are mine; except >they've grown past acting like you do. Once I read the claim that you >paid for the right, I stopped reading. > > <mike > >xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com> types: > > i paid for the right to whine! i still have a $60 box of software that is > > nothing more than a doorstop. ironically, the only way that i may be > able to > > use the software on the freebsd cd's, is to buy a MICROSOFT PRODUCT aka > > INTERIX. THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERNEL > THAT > > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS! if you can make all of the stability > > features of freebsd portable to windows, such that freebsd becomes a > package > > that windows users can add-on to their existing platform, to function > in the > > same way as the ANTICRASH and other utilities that i have running on my > > system, then you may have some sort of redemption in terms of a > future. but > > based on what i have included in this email below, freebsd and everyone > elso > > too) has a very limited term of existance in the face of increasing > > MICROSOFT encroachment into unix interoperability. UNIX WILL BECOME A > > UTILITY FOR WINDOWS. think i'm crazy? read (the third paragrph) below! > > THE ONLY THING THAT PREVENTED MICROSOFT FROM HAVING ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE > > BEFORE, WAS IT'S LACK OF A VIABLE UNIX IMPLEMENTATION. even APPLE computer > > now has a linux platform. when MICROSOFT does with linux what freebsd did, > > and allows linux to run in windows NT/2000, linux and unix will fall under > > the single auspices of MICROSOFT. whether that will be functionally > true or > > not is irrelevant. MICROSOFT ONLY HAS TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION OR > > APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE INTEROPERABILITY. ONCE MICROSOFT HAS NEGATED THE > > ARGUEMENT OF WINDOWS VS UNIX (BY PORTING UNIX TO WINDOWS) THERE WILL > > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS. IT WAS A > > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE > ELECTION! IT'S > > OVER!! > > > > [this paragraph was written before i added everything about INTERIX in the > > paragraph above. i only leave this here as history, as freebsd will > shortly > > become. MS INTERIX may answer all of the questions and aspirations i > > previously had.] THE QUESTION WAS, WHEN WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO INSTALL > > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO. I GEUSS > > YOU DIDN'T READ THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT IT > (THE > > SUBJECTLINE) IS FOR. IT STATED VERY CLEARLY THE INTENT, PURPOSE AND > > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL. i geuss i was wrong to believe the > advertising > > on the box. i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the > > statement of `professional quality', `for serious internet users', etc.to > > mean that freebsd would offer a LOWER LEVEL OF COMPATABLITY than the linux > > systems i had previously used. i brought freebsd because i thought it > would > > give me the level of interoperabilty that i wanted. what i wanted was a > > single OSystem that would run linux and unix on one single platform. the > > sad fact is that even if i did get it running, i still wouldn't have use of > > my cdrom or the scsi disk which i had previously used with both linux > > versions (and now NT as well) for the exclusive purpose of virtual memory > > space. i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to make-up > > for the shortcomings of one operating system. freebsd was supposed to have > > been around longer than linux. why then is it deficient in the area of > > drivers for ancient equipment that were clearly around before linux even > > existed? this is really not an issue of age or maturity regarding a > > specific OS. it is a matter of intent. linux strove for universality from > > it's inception. maybe i am way off base. i am often wrong. but i do know > > that i wanted a single OS that would handle unix and linux. (I HAD NO > > DESIRE TO GO BACK TO WINDOWS!!) SINGLE SYSTEM INTEROPERABLITY is what > > freebsd claimed to do. that is why i brought it. i thought i would not be > > without ANY of the functionality i came to expect from linux. freebsd did > > not deliver on the satisfaction of my expectations which were in fact > > reasonable, based on the statements i read on the box. superior is just > > that, SUPERIOR! it is a term of absolutes. it is was also further claimed > > in the 800 page handbook (which was my main reason for buying the > > power-pak), that freebsd had a higher level of developement than linux and > > was therefore more stable as a result. (based on these claims, why > should i > > have expected to not be able to use the equipemnt i was already using in > > linux?) i had no reason to think that freebsd was in being selective in > > it's statements of superiority. that box should have had a big > asteRISK! on > > it. with more emphasis on RISK! as in buy at your own RISK!; the > > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be true. > > > > now, while you gloat at the apparent triumph the unix community may > think it > > gained by MS buying INTERIX and now including it as part of the windows > > environment, IT IS NOT A TRIUMPH. the bottomline is that MS is not > about to > > go away. YOU CAN THINK OF THIS MICROSOFT ACQUISITION AS THE ANT OR WASP (i > > forget which does what to whom) THAT LAYS IT'S EGGS IN THE BODY OF THE > > OTHER, ONLY TO HAVE IT'S LARVAE EAT IT'S HOST FROM THE INSIDE OUT!! they > > will never forfeit their dominance on the computing community, no > matter how > > infantile you may think their systems are. MS will eat you from the > inside > > out. as i stated in another email, MS can integrate any opensource unix > > (and/or linux) into the windows environment it wants to. and it will. it > > (MS) has already stated that they are going include INTERIX into the > > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases. when MS completely integrates unix > > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on that > > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide that > > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN > > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOWS (AND > > HENCE THE WORLD)! microsoft has the power to make such a pronouncement for > > all the world to follow. and once said, the world will do just that, > > FOLLOW! including you! > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/zipdocs/interix_technotes.exe this is > > the link for all the documentation regarding the functionaslity of INTERIX > > in the windows environment. of course you need windows to read it. so for > > those of you who don't have windows, i'll download and extract it, and > > repackage it as a zip file to attach to this email. even if you don't use > > windows at all, it makes sense to know what MICROSOFT intends to do > with the > > unix community. CANNABALISM couldn't be better! > > > > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperability > > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality with > > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX application > > migration and interoperability solution." DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON THE > > WALL? > > > > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WINDOWS, > > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD. WHAT JUSTIFIES ONE > > JUSTIFIES THE OTHER!! Microsoft may get it wrong to start out with, but > > that won't be the case for long. they want absolute domination. and they > > will do whatever it takes to do that. INTERIX is the "shot across the bow" > > of the unix community. it serves to give notice of the MS agenda to usurp > > any legitimacy of unix as their own. when (previously unix) developers > > realize that they have the absolute standard of windows on which to build > > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (as > > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement. it will nolonger be a matter of > > which version of unix is superior to another. that question will be MOOT. > > it will be as it has always been, a question of profitability and expense. > > NO, I DON'T REALLU LIKE THE IDEA OF ONLY HAVING MICROSOFT CONTROLLING > > EVERYTHING. but there are plenty of things in this life that i don't > > particularly like. and my or your disliking the reality of the world in > > which we live, does not change that world. only intelligent directed > action > > will do that. my statement about writing the freebsd kernel as a windows > > dll or exe mayseem reprehensible to you, but ultimately your survival will > > depend on that very act of infiltration. you cannot stop the INEVITABILITY > > of MICROSOFT porting unix into windows NT/2000. that is clearly their > > intent. noone is going to want to write unix apllications that don't > > conform to any standards that MICROSOFT imposes by the dictates of their > > massive dominance. > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/default.asp > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp > > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Feb00/InterixPR.asp > > > > "Interix provided all of the UNIX functionality necessary to efficiently > > move the code to Windows NT," Klinect said. "One of the key advantages was > > that the code ported to Interix could still be deployed on the IRS' legacy > > UNIX systems during its transition to Windows NT, maintaining the required > > 24x7 full functionality for this mission-critical application." > > > > Interix 2.2 eases the migration of existing UNIX applications and > scripts by > > providing a robust, high-performance environment for running such > > applications. It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage of > > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical > > applications. In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows-based > > application development environment to develop native Win32® API-based > > applications. Interix 2.2 provides over 300 utilities and tools and is > fully > > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. > Interix > > 2.2 is a native subsystem to Windows, providing the highest performance for > > running UNIX applications. The Interix 2.2 Software Development Kit, which > > is included with Interix 2.2, supports over 1,900 UNIX APIs and helps ease > > migration of existing UNIX applications to the Interix environment. > > > > Interix 2.2 provides UNIX users with a familiar environment and set of > tools > > to leverage their existing UNIX expertise. For example, the tools and > > utilities behave exactly as they would on other UNIX systems while > > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates the > need > > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting support and > > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and tools. > > > > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREEBSD!!> > > > > Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of a > > single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterprise > > platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications. Interix > > 2.2 also helps simplify the administration of heterogeneous environments by > > providing UNIX system administrators with access to Windows-based systems > > using familiar tools and management strategies, thus reducing system > > administration and total cost of ownership. Interix 2.2 also provides > system > > administrators with a familiar set of remote administration tools and batch > > support, enabling efficient system administration. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> > > To: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com> > > Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:54 PM > > Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks > > > > > > > I hope you enjoyed writing your troll. I only wish you had been mature > > > enough to post it to the correct list, or not to post it at all. This > > > is QUESTIONS@freebsd.org. You didn't ask any. Since your message was > > > nothing but opinion and ranting, it should have gone to > > > ADVOCACY@freebsd.org. > > > > > > If you don't like FreeBSD because it won't do what you want, either > > > don't use, or fix it. If you don't have the expertise to fix it, > > > either hire someone, or ask politely. Coming off like a whining > > > preschooler won't get you help, it'll just make people mad at you. > > > > > > <mike > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > this is an updated version of the letter previously sent. > > > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE > > xavian anderson macpherson > > http://www.professional3d.com > > > > 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/WindowsServicesforUN > > IX[759]/ProductOverview.asp > > > > i just found what may be the very thing i was asking for. after > writing the > > above paragraph, i went back to the link above and did further reading. i > > came across something called INTERIX. so once again i did a net search and > > came up with a site that sells it. in reading, i found that it is now a MS > > unix-product. it seems to provide the unix components to windows NT class > > environments. i will do more reseach on this. and if i find it to be > > usable, i'll buy it. putting an end to any further questions about freebsd > > or any other variant of unix or linux. let's face it, MS is in a much > > better position to employ unix components such as freebsd than the reverse. > > you might as well look at the writing on the wall. the very openness that > > allows anyone to use freebsd and linux source code, allows MS to add it to > > their own systems without anyone having any right to complain about it. as > > long as MS uses an open source version of unix, they could do anything they > > want to integrate it into the existing windows environment. and all that > > any of you can do is sit back and wipe your eyes. WHIMPER WHIMPER > WHIMPER!! > > you have basically written your own obituarary. because windows can freely > > integrate open source systems, but the same is not true of the open source > > community. hence there will ultimately be no justification for your > > existance. you will be relegated to the status of footnote; and > frankly the > > sooner the better. the system that MS ultimately chooses for their > > integrated environment, will become the status quo. if you thought that > > windows was dominant before, wait until they put unix interoperability into > > the windows NT/2000 framework. your only choice is to set the lead, by > > beating MS to the punch. and that can only be done if you make freebsd and > > linux operate from within NT/2000 before MS does. because mock my > word. it > > will happen. and you will be left out in the cold with the tears frozen to > > your face. ; ) > > > > ALL OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in the paragraphs BELOW IS NOW MOOT. I HAVE > > FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS I HAD ABOVE. INTERIX 2.2 the only thing > > that you will possibly have over MS is price. yes their prices are > > rediculous. but then, based on my experience with freebsd and linux, that > > old saying of `you get what you pay for', has never been more truthful. > > don't bother bitching about my remarks. as i have already seen that i am > > not the only one who has made them. i simply represent your best hope of > > survival. i am a windows user that tried linux and then freebsd. and i > > have done so at an expense that is completely unrecoverable. if you don't > > like my attitude, just remember that there are thousands of prospective > > users just like me who will be no more tolerable of your shortcomings > than i > > have been. and your arrogance will be your destruction. something i will > > greatly revel in. you purported to be the final solution to my and > > everyoine else's problem with regards to internet computing > systems. that's > > a lie. > > > > http://www.provantage.com/scripts/go.dll/-s/fp_47736 > > http://www.provantage.com/FC_MCSB.HTM > > > > 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! > > > > > > >-- >Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ >Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant, email for more information. > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message - Jim - NOTJames - jconner@enterit.com - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - | Today's errors, in contrast: | - | Windows - "Invalid page fault in module kernel32.dll at 0032:A16F2935" | - | UNIX - "segmentation fault - core dumped" | - | Humans - "OOPS, I've fallen and I can't get up" | - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - (To view this properly use a non-proportional font in your MUA) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.0.25.0.20001202003001.02a68968>