hi list!
i was using getfdprm and i had some queries regarding that ..
1. As getfdprm is a tool to procure FDD parameter (density or sector size)
and seems can be used by system support members's assessment etc, can you
tell me if it corresponds with LS-120 or not.
Including the other tools like fdrawcmd, floppymeter etc. , If you are aware
of the possibilities of their usage in LS-120/LS-240, please add that also.
2. How much is the scope for applicability in LS-120 ?
Thanx In Advance,
rajiv.
hi again,
still no answer to my previous query.i think nobuddy knows the answer.
nehowwe we will solve it other way.
does linux floppy driver support super drives (LS-120/LS-240)
Thanx again,
rajiv.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Malik
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: fdutils.
hi list!
i was using getfdprm and i had some queries regarding that ..
1. As getfdprm is a tool to procure FDD parameter (density or sector size)
and seems can be used by system support members's assessment etc, can you
tell me if it corresponds with LS-120 or not.
Including the other tools like fdrawcmd, floppymeter etc. , If you are aware
of the possibilities of their usage in LS-120/LS-240, please add that also.
2. How much is the scope for applicability in LS-120 ?
Thanx In Advance,
rajiv.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:41:40 +0530,
Rajiv Malik <[email protected]> wrote:
>does linux floppy driver support super drives (LS-120/LS-240)
LS-120 definitely, it is required for IA64. With devfs, they appear
under /dev/ide/... Format without a partition table using
mkfs.msdos -I /dev/ide/....
You can create partition tables on LS-120 but some code expects
unpartitioned floppies, even big ones.
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Rajiv Malik <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> hi again,
> still no answer to my previous query.i think nobuddy knows the answer.
> nehowwe we will solve it other way.
>
> does linux floppy driver support super drives (LS-120/LS-240)
>
Not the traditional floppy driver, but rather the ide-floppy driver
(which is a different driver.)
Thankfully, the LS-120/LS-240 hardware is actually sane.
Unfortunately the zip drive probably kept it from displacing legacy
floppies, at least in the short term.
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
On 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Thankfully, the LS-120/LS-240 hardware is actually sane.
Do you mean there is a SCSI version available or merely the ATAPI
implementation is within the spec?
> Unfortunately the zip drive probably kept it from displacing legacy
> floppies, at least in the short term.
Unfortunately at the time I was interested in a removeable storage
replacement technology, there was only SCSI Zip available -- no SCSI
LS-120 drives. I might have not been the only one, so they got what they
asked for.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>>Thankfully, the LS-120/LS-240 hardware is actually sane.
>
> Do you mean there is a SCSI version available or merely the ATAPI
> implementation is within the spec?
>
I believe both, but the important thing is that it's an ATAPI/SCSI
implementation, including a soft eject button, and not that horrible
legacy floppy crap.
>
>>Unfortunately the zip drive probably kept it from displacing legacy
>>floppies, at least in the short term.
>
> Unfortunately at the time I was interested in a removeable storage
> replacement technology, there was only SCSI Zip available -- no SCSI
> LS-120 drives. I might have not been the only one, so they got what they
> asked for.
>
That wasn't what kept it from becoming standard, though. The marketing of
Zip was a bit too good, but Zip couldn't have displaced the legacy floppy,
since it wasn't compatible.
-hpa
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I believe both, but the important thing is that it's an ATAPI/SCSI
> implementation, including a soft eject button, and not that horrible
> legacy floppy crap.
Hmm, Sun used to have a software-controlled standard floppy drives years
ago...
> That wasn't what kept it from becoming standard, though. The marketing of
> Zip was a bit too good, but Zip couldn't have displaced the legacy floppy,
> since it wasn't compatible.
Based on local obervations hardly anyone uses floppies anymore... They
are mostly used for system rescue purposes, where the kind of a device
doesn't really matter.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>
>>I believe both, but the important thing is that it's an ATAPI/SCSI
>>implementation, including a soft eject button, and not that horrible
>>legacy floppy crap.
>>
>
> Hmm, Sun used to have a software-controlled standard floppy drives years
> ago...
>
I'm not talking about Suns.
>
>>That wasn't what kept it from becoming standard, though. The marketing of
>>Zip was a bit too good, but Zip couldn't have displaced the legacy floppy,
>>since it wasn't compatible.
>>
>
> Based on local obervations hardly anyone uses floppies anymore... They
> are mostly used for system rescue purposes, where the kind of a device
> doesn't really matter.
>
... except that you no longer can fit a reasonable system rescue/install
setup on a floppy, so it *defintitely* matters. Also, the floppy device
is like a rash all over the hardware; it maintains a highly undesirable
legacy.
-hpa
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Hmm, Sun used to have a software-controlled standard floppy drives years
> > ago...
>
> I'm not talking about Suns.
I'm just pointing out there used to be no problem with making a
software-controlled eject for a legacy floppy device even long ago if one
wanted to.
> > Based on local obervations hardly anyone uses floppies anymore... They
> > are mostly used for system rescue purposes, where the kind of a device
> > doesn't really matter.
>
> ... except that you no longer can fit a reasonable system rescue/install
> setup on a floppy, so it *defintitely* matters. Also, the floppy device
> is like a rash all over the hardware; it maintains a highly undesirable
> legacy.
You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, Sun used to have a software-controlled standard floppy drives years
>>>ago...
>>>
>>I'm not talking about Suns.
>
> I'm just pointing out there used to be no problem with making a
> software-controlled eject for a legacy floppy device even long ago if one
> wanted to.
>
Macs have had them since, what, 1984? It's never been a question of it
being a problem, but it hasn't caught on on the PC.
>
>>> Based on local obervations hardly anyone uses floppies anymore... They
>>>are mostly used for system rescue purposes, where the kind of a device
>>>doesn't really matter.
>>>
>>... except that you no longer can fit a reasonable system rescue/install
>>setup on a floppy, so it *defintitely* matters. Also, the floppy device
>>is like a rash all over the hardware; it maintains a highly undesirable
>>legacy.
>>
>
> You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
>
Unfortunately other people don't seem to see it that way, and so it
doesn't happen. People ship USB floppies with new laptops, so there is
clearly a demand for them. I believe that if LS-120 had been where the
Zip drive was for a brief while, it would have stuck, just because of the
compatibility issue.
-hpa
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, Sun used to have a software-controlled standard floppy drives years
> > > ago...
> >
> > I'm not talking about Suns.
>
> I'm just pointing out there used to be no problem with making a
> software-controlled eject for a legacy floppy device even long ago if one
> wanted to.
>
> > > Based on local obervations hardly anyone uses floppies anymore... They
> > > are mostly used for system rescue purposes, where the kind of a device
> > > doesn't really matter.
> >
> > ... except that you no longer can fit a reasonable system rescue/install
> > setup on a floppy, so it *defintitely* matters. Also, the floppy device
> > is like a rash all over the hardware; it maintains a highly undesirable
> > legacy.
Hmm. I have a two-floppy rescue system with enough software thereon to
boot the system, install modules for SCSI, install a new SCSI hard-disk,
recover files using tar from off a tape and/or compressed CDROM or
network.
The boot floppy contains a comprssed ram disk and the other is just
ext2 mounted off /usr/bin on the ram disk. If I needed more stuff,
I would mount a cdrom off from /usr/bin, instead.
Without a floppy-based rescue system, you have to use bootable CDROM,
usually supplied by a vendor, without the tools to truly rescue a
system. You can only re-install. For instance some vendors don't
provide a SCSI-tape module so you can't recover from a SCSI tape.
In any event, you have to roll your own if you want to truly recover.
It only takes two floppies. If your hard-disk file system isn't
corrupt, it only takes one floppy.
>
> You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
It would be a disaster, hardly harmless. Have you a clue how much
work gets done off-site (perhaps at home), using "sneaker-net"
(floppies)? Engineers who have to work for a living take work home
every night. They don't have to take a whole source-code tree because
they have already duplicated their work environment via CDROM or tape.
They take home, work on, and return, current source-code or
documentation on floppies.
Whether or not these Engineers have home connections to the Internet
means nothing because their companies (often) deny access to their
workstations from the "outside". The only way to do your job is
via sneaker-net. You get rid of floppies and you get rid of Engineers.
FYI, the current trend here it to remove all I/O devices from
PC/Workstations, requiring everybody to boot off the network. This
makes sure that everybody is running the same M$Garbage.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
>
What an interesting thing to be reading as I'm reinstalling linux on a
server using a combination of boot/root floppies and a network install.
Are you that clueless on purpose?
Gerhard
--
Gerhard Mack
[email protected]
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
Pascal Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>Without a floppy-based rescue system, you have to use bootable CDROM,
>>usually supplied by a vendor, without the tools to truly rescue a
>>system. You can only re-install. For instance some vendors don't
>>provide a SCSI-tape module so you can't recover from a SCSI tape.
>>
>
> There are a few minimalistic distributions that can be burned onto CDROM
> for rescue operations. Just add your favourite kernel with all your
> required drivers and you are ready to go.
>
> Shameless plug: I use my own distribtion
> http://www.tzi.de/~pharao90/ttylinux/
> for the same purpose. ;)
>
And some not-so-minimalistic systems... you can fit an awful lot on a CD.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
-hpa
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Without a floppy-based rescue system, you have to use bootable CDROM,
> usually supplied by a vendor, without the tools to truly rescue a
> system. You can only re-install. For instance some vendors don't
> provide a SCSI-tape module so you can't recover from a SCSI tape.
There are a few minimalistic distributions that can be burned onto CDROM
for rescue operations. Just add your favourite kernel with all your
required drivers and you are ready to go.
Shameless plug: I use my own distribtion
http://www.tzi.de/~pharao90/ttylinux/
for the same purpose. ;)
--
Ciao, Pascal
-<[ [email protected], netmail 2:241/215.72, home http://cobol.cjb.net/) ]>-
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Shameless plug: I use my own distribtion
>> http://www.tzi.de/~pharao90/ttylinux/
>> for the same purpose. ;)
> And some not-so-minimalistic systems... you can fit an awful lot on a CD.
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is inaccessible during
a rescue operation, so no restore from CDROM or CDRW backups is possible.
;) Mine runs out of a 4 MB ramdisk image.
--
Ciao, Pascal
-<[ [email protected], netmail 2:241/215.72, home http://cobol.cjb.net/) ]>-
Hi Pascal.
>>> Shameless plug: I use my own distribtion
>>>
>>> http://www.tzi.de/~pharao90/ttylinux/
>>>
>>> for the same purpose. ;)
>> And some not-so-minimalistic systems...
>> you can fit an awful lot on a CD.
>>
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
> Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is inaccessible
> during a rescue operation, so no restore from CDROM or CDRW backups
> is possible. ;) Mine runs out of a 4 MB ramdisk image.
Maybe that drive is inaccessible, but what about the other drive? Many
systems have both a CD (or DVD) drive and a CD-RW as well nowadays.
Best wishes from Riley.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:50:25AM +0000, Riley Williams wrote:
> >> http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
>
> > Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is inaccessible
> > during a rescue operation, so no restore from CDROM or CDRW backups
> > is possible. ;) Mine runs out of a 4 MB ramdisk image.
>
> Maybe that drive is inaccessible, but what about the other drive? Many
> systems have both a CD (or DVD) drive and a CD-RW as well nowadays.
Are you guys trying to target the highest or lowest common denominator
here? Because the more of this thread I read the more of the population
you guys are excluding.
(Oh but I have my 2 friends have 5 dvd players, 3 cdrws, 4 zip drives,
7 ls-120's and a partridge in their pc and as such I must conclude that
the vast majority of the world does also).
Hrmph.
--
CaT "As you can expect it's really affecting my sex life. I can't help
it. Each time my wife initiates sex, these ejaculating hippos keep
floating through my mind."
- Mohd. Binatang bin Goncang, Singapore Zoological Gardens
CaT wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:50:25AM +0000, Riley Williams wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
>>>>
>>>Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is inaccessible
>>>during a rescue operation, so no restore from CDROM or CDRW backups
>>>is possible. ;) Mine runs out of a 4 MB ramdisk image.
>>>
>>Maybe that drive is inaccessible, but what about the other drive? Many
>>systems have both a CD (or DVD) drive and a CD-RW as well nowadays.
>>
>
> Are you guys trying to target the highest or lowest common denominator
> here? Because the more of this thread I read the more of the population
> you guys are excluding.
>
> (Oh but I have my 2 friends have 5 dvd players, 3 cdrws, 4 zip drives,
> 7 ls-120's and a partridge in their pc and as such I must conclude that
> the vast majority of the world does also).
>
Different distributions target different audiences, that's why we have
more than one of them. Personally I'd rather have a very complete set of
tools available than I worry about the CD-ROM not being free during the
install.
And yes, this is *totally* off-topic for lkml. Let's stop.
-hpa
Hello Peter , I am having a bit of difficulty getting the
ISO image to boot . Below is what I get on the console .
Best transcription I could get at this time . Also fyi
ISOLINUX 1.48 1999-09-26 boots OK on the same machine .
I have also heard a (vicious;-) rumor that 1.63 cure this
difficulty . When are you going to upgrade ?
But XXXX this is a nice tool ! I am -very- thankful to you
for putting this kind of power into one cdrom .
Thank you , JimL
-------< begin error message >-----
ISOLINUX 1.62 2001-04-24 isolinux: loading Spec packet failed, trying to
wing it ...
isolinux: found something at drive=F0
isolinux: Looks like it might be right
isolinux: disk error 00, drive F0
Boot failed: Press any key to retry...
-------------< end message >----
On 16 Oct 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
...snip...
> Works great. I use it in my SuperRescue CD for example; you can there
> check out a complete, working example.
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/dist/superresuce/
...snip...
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux |
| [email protected] | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hello Pascal , Which can mean that I can not use the floppy
drive either (?) . Also one can easily have more than 1 device
which gets by the can not use for both floppy & cdrom .
Hth , JimL
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Pascal Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> >> Shameless plug: I use my own distribtion
> >> http://www.tzi.de/~pharao90/ttylinux/
> >> for the same purpose. ;)
> > And some not-so-minimalistic systems... you can fit an awful lot on a CD.
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/
>
> Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is inaccessible during
> a rescue operation, so no restore from CDROM or CDRW backups is possible.
> ;) Mine runs out of a 4 MB ramdisk image.
>
> --
> Ciao, Pascal
>
> -<[ [email protected], netmail 2:241/215.72, home http://cobol.cjb.net/) ]>-
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux |
| [email protected] | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Without a floppy-based rescue system, you have to use bootable CDROM,
> usually supplied by a vendor, without the tools to truly rescue a
> system. You can only re-install. For instance some vendors don't
> provide a SCSI-tape module so you can't recover from a SCSI tape.
You can have a Zip based rescue system, or an LZ-120 one, or an MO one
(if you can afford a drive), etc... What's the difference?
> It would be a disaster, hardly harmless. Have you a clue how much
> work gets done off-site (perhaps at home), using "sneaker-net"
> (floppies)? Engineers who have to work for a living take work home
> every night. They don't have to take a whole source-code tree because
> they have already duplicated their work environment via CDROM or tape.
> They take home, work on, and return, current source-code or
> documentation on floppies.
If they used Zip, LS-120, or anything, what would would be the
difference? I can't see any.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> > no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> > 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> > LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
>
> What an interesting thing to be reading as I'm reinstalling linux on a
> server using a combination of boot/root floppies and a network install.
Or a single Zip, LS-120, etc. medium... Is that worse?
> Are you that clueless on purpose?
I hope not...
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <[email protected]> said:
[....]
> You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
"Hardly anyone" includes 100% of the people I know. Not exactly heavy use,
mostly occasional transport of files and for emergency booting. Heck,
_every_ machine I see around me here has a floppy drive, can't just throw
that away because _you_ don't like it. The alternatives are extremely
expensive and so rare as to be almost useless around here.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand Usuario #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Horst von Brand wrote:
> > You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> > no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> > 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> > LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
>
> "Hardly anyone" includes 100% of the people I know. Not exactly heavy use,
> mostly occasional transport of files and for emergency booting. Heck,
> _every_ machine I see around me here has a floppy drive, can't just throw
> that away because _you_ don't like it. The alternatives are extremely
> expensive and so rare as to be almost useless around here.
Hmm, I must have written it not clearly enough. Floppies are only used
because alternatives are rarely available and not because they are the
best invention ever. If you had an alternative widely available, you
wouldn't care if it accepted old floppies, would you?
Heck, I have a 5.25" floppy drive in one of my systems at home, yet I
don't complain no other system I have access to now accepts such media...
I know no one who does. Even though a few years ago this was the mostly
used removable medium.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
>
> > > You only confirm what I wrote -- hardly anyone uses floppies, so there is
> > > no need to keep mechanical compatibility in devices -- a complete dump of
> > > 1.44" FD support would be almost harmless. Hence whether a Zip or a
> > > LS-120 -- it doesn't really matter. You need new media anyway.
> >
> > What an interesting thing to be reading as I'm reinstalling linux on a
> > server using a combination of boot/root floppies and a network install.
>
> Or a single Zip, LS-120, etc. medium... Is that worse?
Zip is best defined by it's total lack of quality, I can't keep those
around for long before they either break or become unsupported when they
release a larger drive and as much as I wish LS-120 was a standard
feature.. it's not.
I can't use CDs because I often need something custom. Just try booting a
Dell PowerEdge using the standard Debian install CD, it won't work (needs
custom patched kernel). Removing floppy support would be a shafting of
monumental proportions.
As much as I hate floppies, I'm stuck with em. I doubt I'm the only one
either.
Gerhard
--
Gerhard Mack
[email protected]
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
Hi Cat.
>>> Sure, but having to mount the CDROM means the drive is
>>> inaccessible during a rescue operation, so no restore from
>>> CDROM or CDRW backups is possible. ;) Mine runs out of a
>>> 4 MB ramdisk image.
>> Maybe that drive is inaccessible, but what about the other
>> drive? Many systems have both a CD (or DVD) drive and a
>> CD-RW as well nowadays.
> Are you guys trying to target the highest or lowest common
> denominator here? Because the more of this thread I read
> the more of the population you guys are excluding.
We're trying to include both.
Let's be honest: If we set things up so people with two CD drives
can't use the second drive simply because we've specialised in
people with only one drive, we're no better off than if we set
them up to require that one has two drives.
As I see it, there are the following options available:
1. Insist that those using the rescue CD have two CD drives.
In my book, that's a non-starter, so 'nuff said).
2. Prohibit access to the CD drive for anything other than the
rescue CD.
3. Copy the contents of the CD into a ramdisk, then run from
the ramdisk.
If the user has enough RAM, maybe, but if not...
4. Provide a "Virtual CD Drive" on single CD drive systems
(similar to the way drive B: on MS-DOS 2.00 and later is a
virtual floppy drive on single floppy systems).
I'm not sure how this would work in practice, but it could
be done, I'm sure.
Have I missed anything?
Best wishes from Riley.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:40:14AM +0000, Riley Williams wrote:
> We're trying to include both.
Not really. You're trying to find excuses for adding limitations.
(lots of snipping of the points below)
> 1. Insist that those using the rescue CD have two CD drives.
> 2. Prohibit access to the CD drive for anything other than the
> rescue CD.
> 3. Copy the contents of the CD into a ramdisk, then run from
> the ramdisk.
> 4. Provide a "Virtual CD Drive" on single CD drive systems
>
> Have I missed anything?
5. Let's not put in artificial limitations on what people can and can't
do with their hardware. Let them use floppydisks if they want to. Let
them use CDs if they want to. Let them use 2+ CDs if they want to. Let
them use DVDs if they want to. Let them use Zip disks, LS-120 disks etc
if they want to so long as they are supportable.
If we can support it, we should.
Afterall, the main reason *I* use linux is that it lets me do what I
want to. And I want to use floppy disks for my rescue needs. If and when
I need more I'll move on but the floppy disk is a common denominator
across millions of PCs. Far more then any other removable storage system
I'd say (ofcourse I have no figures to back that up - just common sense).
--
CaT "As you can expect it's really affecting my sex life. I can't help
it. Each time my wife initiates sex, these ejaculating hippos keep
floating through my mind."
- Mohd. Binatang bin Goncang, Singapore Zoological Gardens
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Riley Williams <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> As I see it, there are the following options available:
>
> 1. Insist that those using the rescue CD have two CD drives.
>
> In my book, that's a non-starter, so 'nuff said).
>
> 2. Prohibit access to the CD drive for anything other than the
> rescue CD.
>
> 3. Copy the contents of the CD into a ramdisk, then run from
> the ramdisk.
>
> If the user has enough RAM, maybe, but if not...
>
> 4. Provide a "Virtual CD Drive" on single CD drive systems
> (similar to the way drive B: on MS-DOS 2.00 and later is a
> virtual floppy drive on single floppy systems).
>
> I'm not sure how this would work in practice, but it could
> be done, I'm sure.
>
All of this is why different rescue-CD distributions take different
approaches... as well as those that use other means such as floppy- or
network-booting.
One size doesn't necessarily fit all, and that's just fine.
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 01:09:53AM +0000, Riley Williams wrote:
> > 5. Let's not put in artificial limitations on what people can
> > and can't do with their hardware.
>
> Precicely my point in making the original post.
Sweet. Your point wasn't clear before. My apologies for thinking
otherwise.
--
CaT "As you can expect it's really affecting my sex life. I can't help
it. Each time my wife initiates sex, these ejaculating hippos keep
floating through my mind."
- Mohd. Binatang bin Goncang, Singapore Zoological Gardens
Hi CaT.
>> We're trying to include both.
> Not really. You're trying to find excuses for adding limitations.
Show me where? The person I originally replied to was implying that we
should ignore people with more than one CD drive, and in reply I said
that such was not acceptable.
My situation lets me fall into BOTH camps of this argument:
1. At home, I have both a DVD drive and a CD-RW in my main computer,
and the other computers are all connected to it over a network.
2. For me, "At work" means in my customer's premises, and I often
find myself having to sort out scrambled Linux systems on just
about any hardware combination you care to name.
In the latter category, I've gone all the way from demangling a 386sx/25
with 6M of RAM running Red Hat 4.2 and supposedly set up as a network
print server to demangling a quad P4 with 1G of RAM basically running
Red Hat 7.0 and acting as a stand-alone CAD workstation.
> (lots of snipping of the points below)
>> 1. Insist that those using the rescue CD have two CD drives.
>> 2. Prohibit access to the CD drive for anything other than the
>> rescue CD.
>> 3. Copy the contents of the CD into a ramdisk, then run from
>> the ramdisk.
>> 4. Provide a "Virtual CD Drive" on single CD drive systems
>>
>> Have I missed anything?
> 5. Let's not put in artificial limitations on what people can
> and can't do with their hardware.
Precicely my point in making the original post.
> Let them use floppy disks if they want to. Let them use CDs if they
> want to. Let them use 2+ CDs if they want to. Let them use DVDs if
> they want to. Let them use Zip disks, LS-120 disks etc if they want
> to so long as they are supportable.
> If we can support it, we should.
Precicely.
> After all, the main reason *I* use linux is that it lets me do what
> I want to. And I want to use floppy disks for my rescue needs. If
> and when I need more I'll move on but the floppy disk is a common
> denominator across millions of PCs. Far more then any other
> removable storage system I'd say (of course I have no figures to
> back that up - just common sense).
My main reason for using Linux is simply that it's stable on just about
any hardware I throw it at, but the points you make aren't far behind.
Best wishes from Riley.
[email protected] (Keith Owens) wrote on 14.11.01 in <[email protected]>:
> LS-120 definitely, it is required for IA64.
So the world is finally going to standardize on a floppy replacement? That
would be high time ...
MfG Kai
hi,
does fdutil provide support for LS-120/LS-240(super disk) ???
rajiv.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: fdutils.
[email protected] (Keith Owens) wrote on 14.11.01 in
<[email protected]>:
> LS-120 definitely, it is required for IA64.
So the world is finally going to standardize on a floppy replacement? That
would be high time ...
MfG Kai