 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> I know how to use it and get to it easier than thru the XP recovery
>> console.
>
> Diskpart runs for me from the XP command line. Oh, I see what you mean.
> You had nothing at all on the machine. OK.
>
yep - blank slate - was kinda nice.
>> I actually tried to get to it, but was prompted for an XP installation
>> to recover before I got to a prompt that I could use.
>
> Yeah, I can see where that would slow you down. :-) BartPE is a good
> cure if you do that sort of thing regularly.
>
I think I remember running across that a couple of years ago - Live
Windows, but for some reason never pursued it.
>> I figured that at that point I would rather learn how to get Linux
>> running on my machine because I plan on messing around with it later.
>
> Yeah. And live CDs are certainly easier to find for Linux than Windows.
>
but finding one that would boot on my machine.....
pendrivelinux is a pretty nifty site.
It's amazing what people are doing.
I wish I had that kind of time.....
> I just thought there might have been functionality missing or something
> that I didn't know about in fdisk.
>
probably not
DiskPart is a pretty powerful program.
I had to use it to set up hot-swap IDE on a Windows Server - along with
a lot of other things.
Later... Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Nope. This is a full graphical environment and everything. Not the same
> as a Linux live-cd, as (for example) most services aren't running. But
> it's good enough for what I want to do, which is (for example) resize
> the system partition, or back up *everything* including the registry, etc.
>
One advantage of using a Live-Windows boot - you can actually do things
with NTFS.
My understanding is that Linux and NTFS still aren't the best of friends.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> setup grub
Actually, I was wondering about that, and about booting in general.
The boot sector is really only part of one sector. That doesn't seem
like enough room to write code to find NTLDR or whatever the second step
of Linux boot code is (GRUB I assume, or LILO). Especially given the
wide range of partition types and RAID types a boot partition is allowed
to be on in Linux.
How does it fit enough of the file system code into the boot mechanism
to find the files it needs? Is there something special, such that (say)
copying the file to a different place on the disk would keep things from
booting?
I know you don't have to do anything special if you move NTLDR around,
but that could be a special case in the Windows file system code, I'd
guess. (Maybe I'll try moving it with my live CD and see if stuff still
boots. :-) Even if not, both FAT and NTFS are relatively easy to deal
with, so I can imagine the code being sufficiently simple for a
specifically-named file in the root directory.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Another question is whether the Windows usage license allows you to do
> that...
According to the BartPE page...
"""
Also, according to the Microsoft EULA for Windows XP/2003, a user may
not simultaneously use more installations of these operating systems
than the user has license(s) for.
"""
I.e., if you only run BartPE on machines for which you have a Windows
license already, you shouldn't be violating the license. I'm not a
lawyer, so I really couldn't say more than that.
Obviously, if you make a BartPE disk and boot it on half a dozen
machines which you bought with Linux preinstalled, you're likely
violating the license.
> Commerciality also makes it difficult to distribute projects like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikarunix
No doubt. (And yes, that's a pretty silly project. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Obviously, if you make a BartPE disk and boot it on half a dozen
> machines which you bought with Linux preinstalled, you're likely
> violating the license.
Hmmm... Unless you create it from an XP disk you never installed and
therefore never agreed to the license for. That could be a curious
situation. (Altho, I *think* I remember BartPE asking me if I agreed to
the XP license before it would make its copies. But that would seem easy
to patch out of BartPE. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:57:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> My motherboard uses the nVidia nForce 4 chipset, and as a result many
>>> Linux live CDs can't see any of the SATA drives. However, they all
>>> find the PATA ones just fine.
>>
>> Weird, my HP system here has that same chipset on it, and the live
>> discs do OK with it - SATA drive works beautifully with openSUSE 11.0
>> running on it, too.
>
> When I tried this, openSUSE 11.0 did not exist.
Well, as Darren said, 3 months is an eternity in the Linux world. :-)
> (IOW, now that it's no longer a brand new chipset, maybe drivers are
> more widely available.)
That most certainly is the case. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:53:14 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Does Windows support creating so-called live CDs at all (maybe through
> extensive hacking)?
In a roundabout way, yes - BartPE is one that I've seen used for
specialized applications like imaging.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:53:25 -0400, Tom Austin wrote:
> My understanding is that Linux and NTFS still aren't the best of
> friends.
ntfs-3g solves those issues.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:57:07 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> I still have no idea what "force deth" actually means...
>> It makes more sense as "forced eth", even though the idea of a module
>> that forces death is somewhat amusing...
>> Apparently, the ambiguity is at least partially intentional.
>
> Well, "force" because it's the nForce 4 chipset. "eth" because it's the
> Ethernet interface. I have no idea what the "d" is for.
Presumably "driver".
> ("Disassembled"? As in, they reverse-engineered a drives from the
> Windoze version?)
The Linux version actually.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1606
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:07:32 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The boot sector is really only part of one sector. That doesn't seem
> like enough room to write code to find NTLDR or whatever the second step
> of Linux boot code is (GRUB I assume, or LILO). Especially given the
> wide range of partition types and RAID types a boot partition is allowed
> to be on in Linux.
>
> How does it fit enough of the file system code into the boot mechanism
> to find the files it needs? Is there something special, such that (say)
> copying the file to a different place on the disk would keep things from
> booting?
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Bootstrap-tricks.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Images.html
I know from experience that moving stuff around on the boot partition can
break GRUB.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
