Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 03:01:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Joachim Kuebart <joki@kuebart.stuttgart.netsurf.de> To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: installing 2.2.1 Message-ID: <XFMail.970522032436.joki@jocki.domestic.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970521171731.14320A-100000@terra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 21-May-97 at 21:28:46 Ron G. Minnich wrote: >I just spent a few hours installing freebsd 2.2.1. I have also recently >been installing linux; we use both here. The fbsd system still does not >quite boot. Given how good freebsd is, and how much I like the system and >the people who work on it, I am reluctant to voice any complaint. On the >other hand, we need to be realistic about the state of things. The basic >sum total experience is that: >1) linux install works well and consistently >2) freebsd install does not work well or consistently >3) the freebsd 2.05R install worked much better for me than any subsequent > fbsd install tool. > >problems: >1) install segvs (signal 11) if you try to ftp to a remote machine too > many times. The disk was left in such a state that win95 would hang > when it got to that disk. I had to boot dos and blow the disk > partition away. Did you use the "custom" install option? No changes to the disk are made unless you use the "commit" command. Then, the disk should not be left in an inconsistent state. If you use the "write" option in fdisk and/or disklabel, strange things might happen depending on what you set up. Use of the Write option is therefore not just "not recommended" but you get also warned to do so. >2) the install choices are confusing. For example, when selecting what > to install (kernel-developer etc.) if i select all, does it include > kernel source or not? Things get 'auto-selected' and it is not clear > what that includes "all" will install everything. That includes the source code, too. The predefined package collections are supposed to get an installation that comes close to your actual requirements. Use of pkg_add and pkg_delete is possible after the install to "fine tune" that. /stand/sysinstall can be used to install/uninstall packages in a running system. You find the option in Post-Install/Packages. >3) I have two disks. At some point early in the game > it says if I don't try to write the MBR > I'll be asked to later. I'm never asked to. There's no menu choice for > 'fix boot record'. I have a second ide disk which won't boot. It > also mentions bootez, about which I can find no further mention. > There is a 'nextboot' -- do i use that? I've never been that happy > with the boot setup since 2.05R days -- that was the last time I used > it that it worked well. Use the "Commit" option in the custom instal to write changes to the partition tables as mentioned above. BootEasy can be found in the /tools directory on the CD or on ftp sites. The program is run under DOS and equips any disk it finds with a small boot manager. This allows you to boot any partition on the two disks attached to the the primary IDE controller. The choice of the BootEasy option in /stand/sysinstall leaves space for this boot manager to be installed. To restore a hopelessly lost disk you can use DOSīs "fdisk /mbr" to restore the master boot record to whatever Miscrosoft thinks is sane. /stand/sysinstall has been improved a lot since I got to know it in 2.1.?, and Iīm sure it is going to be improved even more. >4) packages: there needs to be an 'install all, i have much disk' option. You wonīt want this, even if you had infinite disk space. Many packages are present in different versions (ghostscript2, 3, 4, netscape 3, 4) that you will not practically install in parallel. Also, there are different programs for the same purpose (colorls, linuxls), it is up to the user to decide what he likes best. Remember some programs in the ports tree (also packages!) are as big as office suits. Packages can be installed selectively after installation using /stand/sysinstall (graphically) of pkg_add/pkg_delete. This should be seen as usual system customization. >Rather than continue the list, I would recommend to those trying to get >this install process set up that they buy red hat and try installing it. >Linux is not my cup of tea for most things, but the install is definitely >much easier. It might provide some useful ideas. > >If you don't like linux, then get a bsdi system and install that. It's >also quite nice. It is. And it costs $1000 to over $5000. > >ron > >Ron Minnich |Java: an operating-system-independent, >rminnich@sarnoff.com |architecture-independent programming language >(609)-734-3120 |for Windows/95 and Windows/NT on the Pentium >ftp://ftp.sarnoff.com/pub/mnfs/www/docs/cluster.html Java is a byte-code language. No processor has been built yet that supports it natively. On many platforms, however, there are bytecode interpreter programs, so-called "Java Virtual Machines", that can run Java programs by simulating a Java compliant environment. Among those platforms are SunOS, Windows 95, Windows NT, FreeBSD, Linux and many others. cu Jo --------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD - top breeders recommend it <http://www.freebsd.org>; Joachim Kuebart <joa@delos.lf.net> Tel: +49 711 653706 <joa@stuttgart.netsurf.de> Germany <joki@kuebart.stuttgart.netsurf.de>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.970522032436.joki>