Modern OSs can suck my 8====o

Here's how I spent my afternoon/evening...

 

I want to pants off my old 10G HDD that I am using just for the boot menu, because my mobo wont boot off the RAID/SATA or the SCSI ... dont get me started on that.

 

So I get a compact flash to IDE adaptor, and a 512 CF which I already had. Should be a piece of piss, right?

 

Attempt 1 - Copy Windows2000

========================

I tried just copying the old boot menu files to the CF. Too big 600+Mb. With HDD compression its 480Mb. Format CF with NTFS so I can get disk compression. Start copying. Says disk is full around half way through?!? I test by formating again and transferring a large AVI...and I can view the whole thing.

 

Attempt 2 - Install Windows2000

========================

Setup refused to install, needs 600+Mb

 

Attempt 3 - Install Windows98SE

=========================

After every option, there is a minute pause. Dont ask me why :unsure Wants CD in Drive D when CD is Drive E. WTF? Dickaround, dickaround. Disable SATA drives in BIOS. Now setup is happy. Takes 15 minutes to verify disk. Asks me to format. Then takes another 15 minutes to verify again :x Then hangs. A dozen more attempts result in hanging at different points. :x :x :x

 

Attempt 4 - Install Windows95

=======================

Getting desperate...but CD wont boot...arggghhh

 

Attempt 5 - Install Linux

==================

Thought I'd change teams and give penguin poking a go...reached for a PC mag DVD. Boots with Ubuntu, or something. Wont Install, needs 2 Gig. GFIABW !!!

 

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH

elvis may be able to comment more (i'm still learning myself), being that yours is a special case the default linux install and partitioning of that distribution would not suit. ie you should install the system to one of your sata drives but install the bootloader to your cf/ide ..... total /boot size for my fedora 6 system with kernel 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 is around 16mb usage on a 99mb partition.

 

/dev/hda1              99M   16M   78M  18% /boot

 

..... /dev/hda1 being the first partition on the primary master disk.

 

then we get the LVMs which are spanned across the other disks

 

/dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00                       71G   14G   53G  21% /
/dev/mapper/archive-LVpub                                 661G  615G   26G  96% /usr/pub

 

/ is actually on /dev/hda2 here, whilst /usr/pub spans 5? drives i think ... 1hr sleep isnt helping me here :P

 

  PV /dev/hda2   VG VolGroup00   lvm2 [74.41 GB / 32.00 MB free]
 PV /dev/hdd1   VG archive      lvm2 [55.88 GB / 0    free]
 PV /dev/hdd2   VG archive      lvm2 [55.88 GB / 0    free]
 PV /dev/sda1   VG archive      lvm2 [186.28 GB / 0    free]
 PV /dev/sdb1   VG archive      lvm2 [74.50 GB / 0    free]
 PV /dev/hdc1   VG archive      lvm2 [298.06 GB / 0    free]
 PV /dev/sdb                    lvm2 [74.53 GB]

 

The Volume Group VolGroup00 mount point is /

The Volume Group archive mount point is /usr/pub

 

looks to me like /dev/sdb isnt assigned to a LVM, might have to look into that.

 

so i would imagine your setup would need to be something like

/dev/hda1 as /boot
/dev/sda1 as /

 

and any other mounted file systems you may want above and beyond that basic setup.

 

With that said, around 160mb complete linux system install with default paritioning http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/, not as pretty as ubuntu but still a fully featured linux system. I've happily installed DSL to an old Compaq Presario 1615 with a 200mb hdd. After a minor hiccup with a multiuser install (choose no during install or you will not have an account on reboot.)

 

http://pendrivelinux.com/ specialist site dealing with the smaller distros for pen drives.

 

Another option may well be the Windows XP USB Stick Edition 60mb (not sure on the final install size), I have that here if you want to try it, or XPLite with a final install size of around 400mb.

 

A couple of thoughts anyway.

Attempt 5 - Install Linux

==================

Thought I'd change teams and give penguin poking a go...reached for a PC mag DVD. Boots with Ubuntu, or something. Wont Install, needs 2 Gig. GFIABW !!!

 

Ubuntu is a fat bloated "everything and the kitchen sink" distro. Wrong choice for a CF install.

 

I've got the following installs happening on MAME cabinets at home:

 

Debian: installed and working with graphics and networking in 180MB.

 

Slackware: same again, but in 80MB.

 

Ubuntu is aimed squarely and convincing the Windows eye-candy fans to switch to Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love it AS A DESKTOP OS, but it is NOT made for embedded stuff. If you want a tiny install, you're going to have to choose something which gives you more choice of customisation.

 

Ubuntu does have a "server" edition, which is basically exactly the same as the Debian installer but with a bit of extra stuff loaded. Slackware is by far the leanest and meanest Linux there is. It's my first port of call whenever I make MAME cabinets with small hard disks. My cocktail is slackware plus every single vertical ROM supported by MAME, and the whole lot squeezes in under 2GB with room to spare. I'm considering swapping the whole lot out for a 2GB USB key. :)

 

[edit]

Debian and Slackware are probably a bit hard to use for the new-to-linux folks. Very "dive in head first" kinda thing.

 

Like Pendrive Linux, have a look at Slax:

http://www.slax.org/

 

They focus on CD and pendrive/CF booting, and have a variety of images pre set up and ready to go depending on what you want. There's general desktop, movie watching, server, etc. Give that a whirl and try your luck.

I know I have done it with Mandrake on a 256Mb CF...but I think that had a special build of the kernal to do that, or something.

 

Just a bit pissy that the OSs I used happily when I had a 170Mb HDD wont install on a 512Mb CF. :unsure

Just a bit pissy that the OSs I used happily when I had a 170Mb HDD wont install on a 512Mb CF. :unsure

 

Yeah, for some reason the software world assumes "progress" means "bloat". It's something that's pissed me off for a long time about ALL operating systems, no matter who makes them.

 

Gone are the days of programmers who tried to squeeze every ounce of performance and space out of hardware. Now days it's all "just upgrade and shut up". :x

i do recall seeing a "mini" linux that took about 40 meg...

cant remember what it is called...it may get you of of trouble.

go googling

i do recall seeing a "mini" linux that took about 40 meg...

cant remember what it is called...it may get you of of trouble.

go googling

There's heaps of them.

 

Remember "Linux" is just a kernel, which itself is around 200KB up to 15MB depending on what drivers you compile in. All the other crap are support programs that are entirely optional.

 

X-Windows, GNOME, KDE, Open Office, Mozilla, Konqueror, etc, etc - all of that bloat is not "Linux". These are merely other pieces of software that can interact with Linux (and UNIX, and MacOSX, and even Windows with a touch more effort). Likewise there are hundreds of non-free/commercial/proprietary systems out there that work with Linux. There are actually companies out there who sell proprietary GUI systems that sit on top of the Linux kernel (mostly high-end scientific visualisation stuff - very industry specific).

 

Linux "distributions" (or "distros") are just collections of various pieces of free software put together by different groups. RedHat, SuSE, Ubuntu, Debian - all of these groups just compile all sorts of free software and slap then into pretty installers complete with easy to use package managers. I know a lot of people associate the word "Linux" with a full-blown GUI desktop, but this is not "Linux" at all. This is a "GNU/Linux Distribution".

 

Don't feel that you are required to go and install a big bloaty Ubuntu system just for MAME. Ubuntu comes packed with well over 2GB of software that has NOTHING to do with making your system functional. Most of this stuff is entirely optional for a running system. It's got all sorts of image and graphics creators and editors, text/HTML/PHP/Programming editors and development environments, office programs, media player stuff, etc, etc, etc. All that crap is certainly nice to play with on your shiny new Desktop system, but for a nice lean cut-back MAME box it's 100% unecessary.

 

Back in the old days distros gave you a lot of control over what they installed. The cry from the end-users was that it was all too hard, and they should just make "Linux" simple like Windows. So that's what they all did - all the major distros gave you a nice single-click installer that just gave you a running desktop system. End result is a big bloated system that's lacking in install options - just like Windows!

 

As the old saying goes: as ease of use goes up, customisability comes down. The end-users screamed that "Linux" was "too hard", and now we have the modern distros that are simple to install, but give you sweet bugger all choice in what lands on your desktop during installation (you can remove it later of course, but that doesn't help when you have limited install-time resources).

 

If you want customisable, go back in time. Hit the "hard to use" distros like Slackware and Debian, and you'll find that despite being difficult to master, you will once again have 100% control over your system.

Interesting train of thought Elvis, though I'm wondering as one that slims down and gets rid of as much that is possible on my MS desktop installs, with these later day Linux installs is Linux really that much better, can I slim down such an install and have no registery leftovers, hidden system files or is it just another OS?

Interesting train of thought Elvis, though I'm wondering as one that slims down and gets rid of as much that is possible on my MS desktop installs, with these later day Linux installs is Linux really that much better, can I slim down such an install and have no registery leftovers, hidden system files or is it just another OS?

 

Take for instance Ubuntu. I use it because it's a good example for what I want to illustrate.

 

Ubuntu is basically Debian. Same packages, same build type, same package manager, same developers (for most things, anyway). The major difference is Ubuntu comes pre set up for folks who aren't too cluey about how to configure a Linux system. A lot of default applications are chosen for you (which are easy to change mind you). If you were someone who knew the ins and outs of a Linux distro, you could start with a bare-bones Debian distro and work your way up to a customised Desktop system.

 

On the other hand, cutting back something like Ubuntu is dead easy. For starters, GNU/Linux doesn't use a registry. EVERYTHING is configured by either:

 

1) A plain-text, global config file/dir in the /etc directory or

 

2) A per-user, plain-text config file/dir prefixed with a dot (ie: Open Office config is in the ".openoffice" directory) stored in the user's home folder.

 

To remove ANYTHING from a GNU/Linux distribution, you use the built in package manager. In the case of Ubuntu, this is "apt".

 

For example, Ubuntu installs Open Office as the default office application. Say I utterly hated it, and instead wanted to use KOffice. I would do the following:

 

1) Use apt to uninstall Open Office

 

2) Delete the /etc/openoffice and /home/my_user_name/.openoffice directory

 

3) Use apt again to install koffice.

 

Done. No leftover crap, no hidden bullshit.

 

The same goes for ANYTHING on my system. There are no hidden system settings, there are no binary-only registry keys, there are no deep dark secrets. Every single package is installed and uninstalled COMPLETELY by the package manager, and all config files are plain text (ie: you can edit them with any text editor or scripting utility you like - no need for closed or secret GUI-only tools), and are stored in one of two places (/etc, and the user's home folder).

 

The /etc folder for config files is a brilliant idea. How easy is it to back up a Linux system? I'll tell you:

 

I have a client who has a firewal/VPN endpoint, webserver, and file/calendar/wiki/etc server in his office. All Linux. For each system, I use Debian. For each system, I schedule a task to run once a day which compresses the /etc folder of each machine, and emails one copy to him, and one copy to me. This compressed file is around 100KB (yes, kilobytes) of data.

 

He does in-house data backup for everything else (user files on the file server, website data, etc).

 

Now, 2 weeks ago his firewall/VPN machine blew up quite spectacularly. Dramas and tears? Hell no. I slapped together a shitty old G3 mac he had sitting in the corner, whacked two network cards in it and loaded Debian on it. That took me 5 minutes. I grabbed a copy of the /etc compressed folder, and overwrote the existing one. I rebooted the box, and in exactly 7 minutes had him back up and running. No license keys, no tape backups, no reconfiguring systems, no fucking around. A complete working firewall and VPN box with secure logins for over two-dozen users and complete web-administration tools.

 

AND!!! He went used COMPLETELY different hardware! It wasn't even the same goddamn architecture processor! (Intel -> PowerPC).

 

I honestly CANNOT understand the Windows registry. It is seriously the stupidest idea ANYONE ever decided to use. Plain text config files are

 

1) Easy to edit

 

2) Easy to back up, restore and (de)compress

 

3) Easy to compare to another system (I use a command called "diff" to show me the differences in files, rather than trawling through endless menus when I want to see how two different systems are configured)

 

4) Easy to DELETE

 

5) Easy to duplicate

 

6) Easy to synchronise across multiple machines (Decades before "Active Directory" GNU/Linux had the shadow password file and rcp [remote copy]).

 

The whole Windows registry bullshit is the biggest hindrance to Windows users and administrators. It is the worst idea anyone ever came up with, and is probably one of the most significant aides to spyware as well. It hides stuff from end users, and limits your ability to backup and restore a system without some shitty third-party backup software (compared to Linux, where you just copy a file somewhere and you're done - no magic needed).

 

Worst of all, it makes cleaning up after uninstallation a goddamn nightmare. Exactly how many different places is the average user expected to search for hidden crap after removing a program? I'd rather pull teeth I think.

 

You lot hear me whine about Windows every day, I'm sure. But there's a reason I hate it. I can do the same tasks in Linux in about a hundredth the time. And not due to lack of training on my behalf either. I was brought up in corporate Australia under Windows (trust me, I know tricks most MCSE's don't), but learned to do things a lot quicker in Linux in a much shorter amount of time due to it's sensible layout and smart building blocks.

 

I'd much rather be worrying about the overall schema of my systems and networks than fucking around in a registry somewhere. Especially so when I'm dealing with thousands of machines, and not just one or two. :)

 

So, now that I've ranted off topic for a bit - package management under Linux is a piece of piss. No hidden crap, no registry - all common sense. Use your package manager to install and uninstall, and you'll be clean as a whistle.

Take for instance Ubuntu. I use it because it's a good example for what I want to illustrate.

 

Ubuntu is basically Debian. Same packages, same build type, same package manager, same developers (for most things, anyway). The major difference is Ubuntu comes pre set up for folks who aren't too cluey about how to configure a Linux system. A lot of default applications are chosen for you (which are easy to change mind you). If you were someone who knew the ins and outs of a Linux distro, you could start with a bare-bones Debian distro and work your way up to a customised Desktop system.

 

On the other hand, cutting back something like Ubuntu is dead easy. For starters, GNU/Linux doesn't use a registry. EVERYTHING is configured by either:

 

1) A plain-text, global config file/dir in the /etc directory or

 

2) A per-user, plain-text config file/dir prefixed with a dot (ie: Open Office config is in the ".openoffice" directory) stored in the user's home folder.

 

To remove ANYTHING from a GNU/Linux distribution, you use the built in package manager. In the case of Ubuntu, this is "apt".

 

For example, Ubuntu installs Open Office as the default office application. Say I utterly hated it, and instead wanted to use KOffice. I would do the following:

 

1) Use apt to uninstall Open Office

 

2) Delete the /etc/openoffice and /home/my_user_name/.openoffice directory

 

3) Use apt again to install koffice.

 

Done. No leftover crap, no hidden bullshit.

 

The same goes for ANYTHING on my system. There are no hidden system settings, there are no binary-only registry keys, there are no deep dark secrets. Every single package is installed and uninstalled COMPLETELY by the package manager, and all config files are plain text (ie: you can edit them with any text editor or scripting utility you like - no need for closed or secret GUI-only tools), and are stored in one of two places (/etc, and the user's home folder).

 

The /etc folder for config files is a brilliant idea. How easy is it to back up a Linux system? I'll tell you:

 

I have a client who has a firewal/VPN endpoint, webserver, and file/calendar/wiki/etc server in his office. All Linux. For each system, I use Debian. For each system, I schedule a task to run once a day which compresses the /etc folder of each machine, and emails one copy to him, and one copy to me. This compressed file is around 100KB (yes, kilobytes) of data.

 

He does in-house data backup for everything else (user files on the file server, website data, etc).

 

Now, 2 weeks ago his firewall/VPN machine blew up quite spectacularly. Dramas and tears? Hell no. I slapped together a shitty old G3 mac he had sitting in the corner, whacked two network cards in it and loaded Debian on it. That took me 5 minutes. I grabbed a copy of the /etc compressed folder, and overwrote the existing one. I rebooted the box, and in exactly 7 minutes had him back up and running. No license keys, no tape backups, no reconfiguring systems, no fucking around. A complete working firewall and VPN box with secure logins for over two-dozen users and complete web-administration tools.

 

AND!!! He went used COMPLETELY different hardware! It wasn't even the same goddamn architecture processor! (Intel -> PowerPC).

 

I honestly CANNOT understand the Windows registry. It is seriously the stupidest idea ANYONE ever decided to use. Plain text config files are

 

1) Easy to edit

 

2) Easy to back up, restore and (de)compress

 

3) Easy to compare to another system (I use a command called "diff" to show me the differences in files, rather than trawling through endless menus when I want to see how two different systems are configured)

 

4) Easy to DELETE

 

5) Easy to duplicate

 

6) Easy to synchronise across multiple machines (Decades before "Active Directory" GNU/Linux had the shadow password file and rcp [remote copy]).

 

The whole Windows registry bullshit is the biggest hindrance to Windows users and administrators. It is the worst idea anyone ever came up with, and is probably one of the most significant aides to spyware as well. It hides stuff from end users, and limits your ability to backup and restore a system without some shitty third-party backup software (compared to Linux, where you just copy a file somewhere and you're done - no magic needed).

 

Worst of all, it makes cleaning up after uninstallation a goddamn nightmare. Exactly how many different places is the average user expected to search for hidden crap after removing a program? I'd rather pull teeth I think.

 

You lot hear me whine about Windows every day, I'm sure. But there's a reason I hate it. I can do the same tasks in Linux in about a hundredth the time. And not due to lack of training on my behalf either. I was brought up in corporate Australia under Windows (trust me, I know tricks most MCSE's don't), but learned to do things a lot quicker in Linux in a much shorter amount of time due to it's sensible layout and smart building blocks.

 

I'd much rather be worrying about the overall schema of my systems and networks than fucking around in a registry somewhere. Especially so when I'm dealing with thousands of machines, and not just one or two. :)

 

So, now that I've ranted off topic for a bit - package management under Linux is a piece of piss. No hidden crap, no registry - all common sense. Use your package manager to install and uninstall, and you'll be clean as a whistle.

 

Thanks for that elvis. Nice read.

Yes indeed, thanks Elvis, reads well, sounds rather good. One day I will, though stuck with XP, Direct X and Visual Basic scripting, ATM, can't see any of those ever being ported over. Anyways thanks for the explanation, here have a free game on me...:)

May have found a way around my issues...create a 512Mb FAT32 partition on my HDD and install there. Then copy over.

stuck with XP, Direct X and Visual Basic scripting, ATM, can't see any of those ever being ported over.

There's a good three or four free VB script compilers and interpreters for Linux. If you're interested in C# and .Net, there's the "Mono" project in Linux too. Plenty of open source folks like VB and .Net, and work hard at making equivalents and translators for Linux.

 

DirectX I can't help you with, however. All I can suggest is looking at SDL and OpenGL if you ever get the time.

 

May have found a way around my issues...create a 512Mb FAT32 partition on my HDD and install there. Then copy over.

Wasn't your issue the whole time that 600+ MB was needed?

...

Wasn't your issue the whole time that 600+ MB was needed?

 

Not with Win98SE. Win98SE is handy to play all those older games that dont work on NT, eg Shadow of the Empire, and many other Lucas Arts games (I wanna have another attempt at finishing Sam and Max Hit the Road)

On the topic of Sam and Max, check out SCUMM VM:

http://scummvm.sourceforge.net/

 

Hi res Sam and Max! Woo!