A G wrote:
I am a re-newbie to Linux. A couple of weeks ago I got
"re-newbie"... Meaning once a guru but now again a newbie?
he he :-))
Before I comment anything,
_Rule of thumb 1_
*Never ever* press the panic button whenever in trouble.
Now be it as simple as a messed up Linux install ;-)
_Rule of thumb 2_
*Never ever* take the easiest/fastest way out.
Something as crazy as what you did while deleting your
primary partition.
_Rule of thumb 3_
*Know* a Linux guru.
You could find him in friend, in group or on a mailing
list, anywhere. Or try and be one. Fastest way to go about
it? RTFM, which is an acronym for "Read the fine manual".
my hands on Lycoris linux. When I tried to install
lycoris, it screwed my hdd big time. It never booted -
which it should have, it never gave me the dual boot
option - which it should have. I could boot from my
dos floppy and access C:, but lycoris mess-up never
allowed me to create any file from dos. I could just
view. I had win98 se installed at that time. I though
of trying to overwrite the mbr with my my win98se
setup. But 98se setup used to abort. I had to DELETE
my primary partition to make my system (win98se) work!
If you read your message again, you will realize that
no where have you mentioned how did you actually go about
installing the Linux OS. But you have taken the liberty
of saying "it" screwed my hdd etc etc... What you need
ask is whether it was the Linux installer or it was the
person instructing the installer?
Simple. Know what you are doing man.
Can anyone tell me what could hv gone wrong? My C: is
10 GB, D is 10, E is 15 GB and F is the remaining of
the total of 40 GB.
Is its because lycoris cant recognise large
partitions. I remember in year 97, 98 that red hat
didnt work fine with large partitions.
I think you are talking about Linux boot loader and the
"kernel living in the first 1024 cylinders" caveat. If yes
then the answer is No. If your distro has the latest version
of the boot loader, then you are fine. What you need to
check though is the support from the BIOS.
I used red hat in late 90s. But then gave it up for
the easy of use of 98se. I thought that lycoris was
the better of linux for DESKTOPS. But I am thoroughly
shaken with this linux experience.
I think the main reason is, you pressing the "panic" button
and not being well conversant with the Linux installation
procedure. You could have at least confirmed with someone
whether your hardware setup gets a "green" for the "don't
read the fine manual" kind of an installation.
Can anyone tell me which linux works fine as a good
desktop? It should atleast be as easy to use as
win98se.
You need to define "good desktop" over here. Also what all
do you expect from a good desktop? I think what you should
be looking at is a "desktop" rather than a distro.
I use 3 desktops based on my needs or the type of work which
are KDE3.1/Xfce4/IceWm. All are good.
KDE should be your choice for desktop and Mandrake for the
distro.
> (Btw, before this linux mess-up, my win98se worked fine
> for 5 years.)
Like,
You never had those "cute blue screen bombs"? OR
You never had to reboot your SE ever? OR
You never had any virus problems? OR
You never had any security issues with that SE, which belongs
to the (in)famous 9x series? OR
Simply what about the windows licensing?
:-))
>
> ~A.
>
-Andy
--
______________________________________________________________________
Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
List Information: http://plug.org.in/mailing-list/listinfo/plug-mail
Send 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for mailing instructions.
