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] devnull> 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

>> 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.

So the location of the real meat is hard-coded into the MBR. Neat...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> ("Disassembled"? As in, they reverse-engineered a drives from the 
>> Windoze version?)
> 
> The Linux version actually.
> 
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/1606

Ah. So there *is* a Linux driver, the guys just dislike closed-source 
drivers, so they wrote their own?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> My understanding is that Linux and NTFS still aren't the best of
>> friends.
> 
> ntfs-3g solves those issues.

Several programs claim to "solve" these issues - with varying degrees of 
safety warnings. ;-)

(There are kernel NTFS drivers, there's a gizmo that loads NTFS.SYS from 
your Windoze partition and uses that, there are read-only NTFS drivers, 
and so on and so forth.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message