On 2006-09-22, Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5717470.6MfhOuhPVC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Gentoo Announces 'Seeds'
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The aim of the project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used
>> | to 'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.osdir.com/Article9357.phtml
>
> My understanding is that Gentoo Seeds are out-of-the-box setups of
> Gentoo for common tasks, such as web serving. I don't think the project has
> anything to do with installing Linux over the network without CDs.
So that would be the "without CD's(sic)" part. Right?
>> Install Fedora Core 5 Linux Without Burning CD
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | I tried to install fedora core 5 without burning the iso into cds.
>> Normally
>> | I install them and then the cds are of no use. I use compelete install
>> and
>> | I upgrade or install new packages directly from the interent (sic). This
>> | way I have fedora core 2, 3 ,4 cds sitting idle with me.
>> `----
>>
>> http://imthi.com/blog/73/index.php
>
> This is a neat trick, but unfortunately the instructions as stated
> requires Windows XP to already be installed on the system. You could
> probably modify this to remove the requirement for WinXP specifically, but
> it would at least require *SOME* OS already installed, as the host OS needs
> to download the installation data from the Internet and place it somewhere
> on the harddrive.
Unless, as one of the followups suggested, you use something external
(a live CD perhaps) to download the ISOs to an external drive. Or even
to a partition or an internal one. You could also download the files
from an existing linux installation.
The op's instructions said you'd need to have Windows installed if you
wanted dual-boot. It didn't say it was a requirement for the operation.
For a fairly comprehensive list of CDs that could make this an all-
linux method:
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
>> There was also a thread on the kernel mailing-list some time ago, which
>> explained how to install Linux without physical access to the machine. And
>> there are Live CD's, USB installations, etc. What do the rivals have to
>> offer? They are /virtually/ nowhere to be /seen/. No virtues (features).
>> Only sins (viral marketing).
>
> I'd avoid terms with religious overtones.
Why? Many of the MS people refer to themselves as "evangelists". Should
others not have the right to refer to them with terminology that holds
a relationship to language they use to describe themselves?
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;298750
>
> This uses PXE to install from the network device, so you don't need
> anything from the harddrive, but you do need a local server in your LAN to
> host the install data.
A means to install from an already mounted drive or file (the one on
the server, not the one on the local machine). *NOT* a means to do it
all standalone. Quaint. Workable, but quaint.
Of course, it would be ridiculous to have a local copy of Windows on
the drive. It can't be (legally) downloaded. So you'd have to copy it
from the media in any event.
Who knows what MS might be able to come up with if they had another 20
or 30 years to "innovate". Multiple desktops perhaps (not their goofy
Power Toy, and it would help if it was one they'd support). Maybe even
text config files that humans could understand. Or something really
high-tech, like permissions. (I was going to mention general security,
but another 30 years isn't sufficient.)
--
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like
the Windows people."
|
|
