Double question

[Battery Powered]

I have two drivces on my box, and am about to convert from windows to linux (redhat 7.2)

my c: drive i dont care about, all the files can go but my d drive has 120 gigs of files i need and cant delete,

will linux still be able to read the secondary (fat 32) drive?


Could i get away with using a redhat 6.1 boot disk as i dont have a boot disk for redhat 7.2

Thanks for all your time everyone,

James

[MaXimum SMOKE]

If those are 2 physically separate drives, you can Install on the 1st drive and save the second. Yes Linux can read a FAT32 drive, but you have to mount it first. You do not need a boot disk if you can get your cdrom set as a bootable device. Do NOT try to use a 6.1 as a boot for a 7.2 install. They have two entirely different versions of the kernal on them.
I would recommend you borrow a book on redhat before you do this install. If you try to do a quickie partition and don't understand disk structure you can accidentally format the wrong disk and lose all those important files. I'm not trying to scare you, but everyone has their own level of understanding. You have to do a custom partition here. Disk Druid is a nice tool, but it requires understanding the basics about partitioning. Freezinbutt gave good advice to a user once when he told him to unhook a drive he couldn't aford to lose. The downside of this, is since a second drive was not inplace during the install, you would have to hand mount it later, to read that Fat32 partition. This all assumes that the D drive you want to save is a separate FAT32 drive and it contains a standard Boot record. Meanining you could plug this drive into another windows computer as a slave and it would immediately be recognized as a D drive and be read. Remember linux can access a normal FAT32 disk, but Linux cannot execute Windows programs.


Last minute edit, Jim check your hardware, drive and controller for support in the redhat.com support pages. That is pretty dog gone large for a 'standard' ide style drive.

[freezinbutt]

Good advice from M.S. there. Just an addition to the above; you might want to consider Red Hat 7.3. It is the latest version and is really nice. Very easy to install and it includes KDE 3 which is also very nice.

freezinbutt

[MaXimum SMOKE]

I just did a quick search on redhat, and could not find the max size limit of a standard FAT 32 Drive. 120 GIGS of files WOW what size is that drive? James, that is one factor I didn't check is the hardware that you have, for support. This is worth a check at redhat.com for hardware support. You really didn't mention the true size brand etc., and what the controller is. That must be a monster! Good Luck! I must do a last minute edit on my previous. post.

[Battery Powered]

Well i have got two drives on my Micro**** computer, two seperate drives that is,
My c drive is 40gigs and is my bootable drive on my windowsME computer,
and the second d drive is 125gigs (IBM) harddrive
(which out of that 125gig has 3.5 left)

So basically i should go for 7.3 if i can, ??

i have a box set of 6.1 that i've had for ages but never got round to using, i then d/l me a copy of 7.2 (2 boot iso's and 2 srpms iso's)

Im desperate to change for a personal haterid of microsft that has occured,

Does anyone have a download link for 7.3, i looked on there iste ansd it doesnt seem illegal to download, so hopefully i wont get in trouble for asking for a link

Im also gonna be trying to install a speedtouch usb modem aswell (should be fun)

If i cant get a download of 7.3 then could someone post how i can (or where) to get a boot disk for 7.2 so i can run what i've got

Thanks,

James


(Just had an idea, could i not install the 6.1 i got then update the kernal and what-not ? )

[freezinbutt]

Try www.linuxiso.org for a link to download it.

And no....it is not illegal to download or ask for a link. Linux is open source.

freezinbutt

[Battery Powered]

I thought as much

:-)

thanks for the link, i tried redhats ftp site and it gave me a whopping 1.8 to 2 k/sec

Ouch!!

[Battery Powered]

Ummm, that link dont work so good

Take it back - it does now, and a nice 40k sec (and climbing)

[MaXimum SMOKE]

Hi James,
Sounds like it would make a good server box. I agree with Freezinbutt, in that you want the latest distro you can get. Both for the Hardware support, and for the security patches. If you go back too far, you'll lose the benefit of all the new kernal and other software improvements. I just got a little concerned when you mentioned the size of that drive, since a) I know that linux can read a Fat32, but I don't know the size limits of that. b) Sometimes when you get real large drives, the manufacturer may tweak the partition, or other lowlevel software, so they are not 'garden variety' FAT 32 partitions anymore. If you have intentions of using this as a server, I would subscribe to a good security newsletter, to make sure you keep up on all the released patches. I guess there is going to be a lot of demand on the iso servers, since 7.3 is so new. Updating an old version, kernal etc. more trouble than I think it's worth. The 1st install disk should be bootable, so no boot disk required. I hope this helps, and good luck!

[Battery Powered]

Thankyou


Im wondering (in advanced) if youl be able to give some help one i get the beast up and running,
im downloading the new version (at 53k /sec :-) ) so all should be finished by the time i wakeup tommorow

I've installed 6.1 a while back, found the installation quite easy so am not really bothered by this new version too much, but what should i go for,
when i installed 6.2 i had a choice (if i remember rightly) of server, gnome etc...

Server would be the obvious choice but with that would i loose the gui interface?

So if you could point me as to which one i should look at then it would be appreciated,

(and im gonna need some help installing the bits and peices to make it a server if anyone is game to help with that too)


Thanks alot for all your help everyone, i appreciate it,

Regards,
James

[MaXimum SMOKE]

I personally, prefer the KDE desktop, but I also installed gnome to have the benefit of the gnome specific programs. I think most everyone here will jump in and out of the postings to help someone. Everyone has their own backgrounds and previous experiences, with different types of installs, so hopefully you'll get a good variety of options I guess I spend a fair amount of time with a book, but as fast as Linux is growing, a lot of specific books can get outdated fast. And we all know how good tech. books are priced

[Battery Powered]

So im your experiance wshould i go for KDE?

And if anyone else has experiance too then shout your opions, esspecially if you run a server

Thx alot MaximumSmoke, its a great help what your doing

Regards,
James

[MaXimum SMOKE]

My P.C. ....... I installed them both. With Red Hat's login you can switch them to see what you like best.

[Battery Powered]

well im not sure i should complicate matters just yet :-)

being new to linux and blond is a bad enough mixture as it is

lol,

if i choose a 'server' will it automatically install apache and what-not ?

[Battery Powered]

Ive just been reading over the installation guide on redhat.com and think im gonna go for a workstation install,

dont want to complicate (reasons stated above, the being blond more-so) matters by choosing a server install and not getting a nice lil GUI

[MaXimum SMOKE]

Mine are all workstation installs, personally. You can always add and subtract packages later. But really, the desktop switching thing is a lot nicer than it used to be. I don't have 7.3 yet. My newest was the beta. But if you select to have both kde & gnome and start the computer in graphical log in mode, You get the choice each log in, for kde or gnome. If you don't specify, then it selects the last one you used, for each user. Not bad, huh?

[Battery Powered]

Well i think thats what im set for then, both

just cant wait for the bloody thing to finish downloading, nearly finished the first disk

(im backing up my c drive files, will it wipe everything ?
well i spose i could just set it to use a few gigs, that way it would leave the rest alone (i think)

Thanks again for all your support

[MaXimum SMOKE]

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/l...artitions.html

Above is a redhat doc on partitioning. It is a little dated. I have used the fips program it speaks of, but I wouldn't bet any non-replaceable data on it.
Note on installs involving a single hard drive with 2 operating systems on it... If the second operating system is located too far into a drive, it may not boot. This is a hardware limitation of some systems. If my memory is correct they used to call this something like ... the 1023 cylinder rule

[Battery Powered]

what do u suggest i do?

[MaXimum SMOKE]

Your choice.... Seems like every action has a consequence... Read back through the threads and you'll see talk about some dual boot installs. I guess I don't know what your level of computer expertise is. I have built dual boot single drives. Fun for the experimenter. Depends upon what you intend to use this machine for. If it is for a 24 / 7 server. I wouldn't bother with a dual boot machine. Thinking is, when would it ever see windows again? In that case I'd move my windows to another computer. If this machine is your 'hobby' , then you have to make a decision. At least it appears you have the capacity to back up your windows files. That's a good thing! I do recommend that anyone that has intentions of working with Linux, take a trip to their bookstore or library, and locate a book that fits their level of expertise. It will at least give them an idea of what they are working with. They can see what is considered typical and most authors comment on things that gave them problems. My friend just did an install with Mandrake on a 40 g. He went 30 Windows XP and 10 Mandrake. He used the Linux bootloader in the MBR of this drive. On his hardware no problems. The last one I did on a 20, was 8 windows 12 linux. Personally for me if it doesn't work, I try something else. Sooner or later unless you're really blessed you're going to make a mistake and It may cost you some data. If you're a hobbyist, it's the price you pay for the hobby. I guess that's just my philosophy. Any thoughts?

[Battery Powered]

what your saying makes sense,

but when i put an OS on this machine, in fdisk i selected to use all available space for the partition, meaning if i fired up R.H
it would say where do u wanna install to?
i would say c drive
it would say not enough room

(Quite the chatterbox is old R.H)

Im not sure if i worded all the above to well, shout if it doesnt make sense

(Basically im trying to say that the partition no my c drive uses the whole of the hdd, meaning no more room for a linux partition)

[MaXimum SMOKE]

Correct. Drive c: (/dev/hda) only 1 partition, and it's primary. That's what FIPs is about. It tells you to scandisk and defrag the c: drive. Hopefully at this point there is a lot of unused space on the drive and no unmoveable win/dos files exist in the "shall we say 2nd half of the drive". Then you start fips from dos. Then it basically offers to split the partition in to 2 fat partitions. The size choice being yours. IF this all works correctly, (pray) You wind up with a smaller c: drive and another fat partition. In theory this second partition doesn't mean anything, and can be deleted. A new linux set of partitions is created to hold the redhat file systems in this area. So you wind up with 2 OSes on 1 hard disk. There should be a dosutils directory on the first disk with fips and all the Big Bold Warnings and disclaimers in the fips read me files.
The other option is you use disk druid to delete the partition that hold the "c" drive that you no longer want, YES complete destruction of data, nothing saved. Remember there is the possibility that fips won't work and you lose all the data on "c" anyhow. Also if you haven't tried it yet, you can have windows up and put that rh disk in the drive and read the text files that describe this as well as the other 'read me ' files on the disk

[Battery Powered]

so this FIPs prog will basically split my current fat32 partion into 2

meaning i can then delete one and install linux on it

(which is all downloaded now, even the rpms )

If the above is interpreted right then where can i get this FIPs or is it software on the R.H disk ?

Regards,

James

[MaXimum SMOKE]

It should be on the first RH install disk. Navigate to a directory called, as I remember..... /dosutils In with other goodies is fips. There was always 2 versions 1 is older than the other. You want the newer one. Both have 'readme' files. BTW Before you found out you didn't need one, you asked about a 3.5 boot floppy..... The old rawrite program should be there. That with it's folder of image files is how a person with an older computer, that does not have a bootable cd drive would create a boot floppy. You always wanted to study old Linux history, right?
At any rate, if you do use this and it works, without data loss, if, if, if, .... Then you would run scandisk on the new c drive, It will probably need it. Then remove the extra un needed fat partition, with disk druid, and replace it with linux partitions. Get used to the partition names and numbers in Linux In an ide only computer,

traditionally it's like this:

The first ide cable master ---> /dev/hda - slave ---> /dev/hdb
The second ide cable master ---> /dev/hdc - slave ---> /dev/hdd

The partition number follows, so in a windows only 1 hard drive, 1 large partiton, with first ide master drive utilized, computer, the partition typicaly, would probably be
/hda1

** Test question if your cdrom is the first device, on the second ide cable which linux device is it?

[Battery Powered]

Taking a shot in the dark and gonna call it the second

But now i have all the ISO's burned to cd, have got a **** load of room left on my c drive

Do i just boot from the cd and do the rest from there?

[MaXimum SMOKE]

Answer /dev/hdc I have a point to make here, and I hope you don't take offense, but to do this kind of install without a fair knowledge of Partitions, linux naming conventions, and use of programs running in dos, on a machine that you have already told us has over 100 gigs of data, that you cannot afford to lose, would not be a good Idea. Using partitioning tools on a disk can be a disaster, if you operate on the wrong disk. It could become over 100 Gigs of unrecoverable data, in a heartbeat. I would recommend that you do an install on a machine that has no data on it that is irreplaceable. I would work with another box until you get familiar with all the naming conventions. All it takes is not knowing the difference between hda, b, c, and d, to make a bad mistake. As I say please don't take offense, but in all good conscience, I cannot recommend you do this install on a machine with irreplaceable data, at your current level of experience. I am very sorry. -M.S.

[Battery Powered]

Lol, course i wouldnt take offense :-)

Im extremly new to this and expect not to know,

But all my 'irreplacable' data is locked away and all i've been playing with is my c drive (40 gigs)

I now have windows2000 on one partition and the rest is for linux,

i have installed linux already, and it all wen fine, the only problem is the boot section of the install

What am i exatlly supposed to do?

I went with MBR as it was the default setting but this doesnt give me the option when booting of which O.S to load, win2000 just kicks in straight away

Any ideas?

Regards,
James

[MaXimum SMOKE]

It sounds like Win 2000 was installed after the Linux install. In this case the MS OS would over write the previous Linux Boot loader. If you made the emergency boot disk during the Linux install, you have options, if not ...... You're looking at a re-install. I have heard rumours that the Linux Boot Loader doesn't co-exist well with Win 2000. I think the claim was the opposite of what you have, meaning the win 2000 would not boot. I don't work with win 2000 personally. Many people prefer to use other bootloaders for win 2000 installs with linux. I have no experience with these.

[Battery Powered]

doesnt seem tg=hat i can win this :-)

So say i re-install linux, shall i just select the MBR option, then see how it goes from there

No doubt as u said, i'll get problems, but i'll give anything a go

And on another note, do u know if XP 'co-exsists well' with linux?

And yes, i did make a boot disk - (thats the only way i can get linux to start)

[MaXimum SMOKE]

If you made the Boot disk, then you can get the system up and running in linux. You could then sign in as root, and use the system administration tools to re-install the bootstrap loader to the mbr without having to reinstall linux. Thanks for floppy disks, huh? The problem is, I do not have a background with Win 2000, NT type installs. I really don't know if you will co-exist with 2000. So this may not work for you. XP is based on 2000's kernal, so could very well be the same thing. Some people like 3rd party software for booting. http://www.linguistsoftware.com/syscom.htm
http://www.v-com.com/product/sc7_ind.html You would have to email them to see if ext3 file system support is there. These are examples, in the links. I do not have any experience with loaders other than Linux's. Others could tell you how to modify 2000's loader, but I haven't been there myself.