[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Help on Installing Independence
> I need someone to walk me through this. I am using a Windows Box with
> NO Linux partition.
> At 11:32 μμ 21/2/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> > > Here I am again.
> > >
> > > I have taken a look at the RedHat CD and I think that the correct setup is
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > h:\Indy
> > > h:\Indy\base
> > > h:\Indy\instimage
> > > h:\Indy\RPMS
> >Just create a Symlink RedHat -> Indy (well if you are on a windows
> >partition you are hosed) just in case I overlooked something when
> >changing paths..
> So if I rename the Directory from Indy to RedHat I will be fine. If I
> burn a CD what kind of CD should I create in order for Linux to be
> able to see the long file names? Rock Ridge Extensions? Does anyone
> know a windows software that can do that?
No, the 6.0 installer looks under Indy, the RedHat thing was only a
safety measure. If you cannot have both then give the name Indy to
BTW 6.0 is not that bad if you don't have a very recent video card (eg
Nvidia Geforce). In that case you will need to upgrade your Xserver
before being able to run X but it is not very difficult.
> And yes I am on a Windows box and I wish not to be hosed. SO how do I
> handle this?
> >However here we have two cases:
> >Indy 6.0 is finished. There you have an install who will look for an Indy
> >Indy 6.1 is uncomplete. It still has a RedHat installer (looking
> >under the RedHat directory ) who in addition has a RedHat filedatabase
> >so in many cases it will fail to find the Indy file because the RedHat
> >file is named myfile-3.i386.rpm while the Indy package is a
> >myfile-5.i386.rpm due to being anewer version. I can do a very quick
> >and dirty build if you _really_ require it but you will only get the
> >old Indy 6.0 installer.
> How do I know what I have i.e. an installer looking for Indy or RedHat.
> Is there a dos/windows tool to check for this?
6.1 in its present state will look for ReHat. Period. But it will run
into problems at a later stage. Period. If you ask me to fix it
then it will look for Indy. Period.
> Can I do the installation from a FAT32 partition? So far I have only done
> CD installations and UMSDOS ones so be patient with me. What do I need to
> watch out for?
Problem is that I never tested this (FAt 32. I don't run DOS). My
concern is name mangling in FAT 32 partitions because DOS maps all but
the latest . to _ and then it would not be coherent with the contents
of the database.
> >About Indy being easy to install I reiterate that IMHO this is far too
> >overrated for marketing reasons (this is what the PC Magazine reporter
> >will see). What Indy aims is:
> >1) Provide something useful and fun whatever user you are, not a
> >distribution who is objevctively only a toy if you are not a corporate
> >user or a nerd
> >2) Provide for your constraints: how you learn, how you connect, who
> > are you. Most distributions implicitly assume the system
> > administrator (you) has years of experience.
> Let us not kid our selves. I do not have that kind of experience even
> though I do not have a problem of devoting the time, patience and
> energy to work on this.
Indy tries to cope with this. Don't expect miracles because Indy 6.0
had little of manpower backing it but it still a bit harder to break,
makes easier to get help and it is easier to fix than your average
distribution. Ie thought has been given to the user who is not being
teached Unix but has to fight from minute one. For instance 6.1
should have included a software enbling you to protect the box against
Internet attacks by just answering 4 or 5 easy questions.
> >3) Make it easy to _use_ is higher on the list than easy to install:
> >the easiest install is go to an installfest and have someone install
> >Linux for you but what happens when you return home?
> There are NO installfests where I live! So I have to rely solely on any
> help I can get from the net and on my self.
Indy has not the same nice install than Caldera but it is not a
horrible. It is just state of the art. If you don't have
compatibility problems (or name problems see above) it is not
It tries to autodetect hardware and gives you precooked installaytions
who will repartition the disk and install a sensible software
selection without you having to know them
The hardest part is carving a hole for Linux by defragging the Windows
partition and then running the FIPS utility from DOS.
> So what do we do now. Or rather what can I do now? I have already burned
> one CD and I have been unable to install Indy so I would like some
> assistance in order to do the install.
Which directory did you download? What were the symptoms?
Are you in Europe or in America?
> So far I have been doing mostly installations of linux and I would like
> to move on and start to actually do real work with it. Marketing wise
> Indy sounds like it would do the job for me so that is why I am trying it.
> Bottom line. I want to install Indy and start producing with the system.
> I do not wish to spend my time just on installing new distributions every
> so often.
That is what Indy tries to do.
Jean Francois Martinez
Project Independence: Linux for the Masses