Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT"
From: Gonzalo (nomail_at_nomail.com)
Date: 04/11/04
- Next message: Gonzalo: "Re: Installation Problem With Fedora!"
- Previous message: Gonzalo: "Re: Redhat 9 Requirements?"
- In reply to: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Next in thread: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Reply: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:19:47 -0400
straydog wrote:
> chris@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Apr 2004 18:16:18 -0700, straydog@sdf.lonestar.org (mystery man)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A few weeks ago I reported that RH Enterprise Linux (ver 3.0) could
>> >not find my CDROM drives on several of boxes and thus my attempt to
>> >install this OS (& aps) ended in serious disappointment (bear in mind
>> >I had great success with RH 5.2 and 6.2 on at least a dozen other
>> >boxes).
>> >
>> >I tried to see if RH EL would recognize any more CDROM drives I had
>> >(most are vintage mid 1990s, which may have been the problem), but
>> >finally I aquired a used box (400 mhz, 64 mb of ram) today and
>> >lo-and-behold the software could find the CDROM drive and the
>> >installation proceeded without problems AND it even booted up and just
>> >barely got the graphical desktop up and running. Almost everythign
>> >else I tried to load caused, from the sound of the HD, the swap file
>> >to work. Ergo, since the install was successful, I have some
>> >motivation to go out and get more memory for the box so I can speed it
>> >up. So far, I tried the RH EL disks on about five other boxes with
>> >CDROM drives that the software could not find.
>> >
>> >The main points of this story: i) the drivers that RH provides
>> >definitely don't work on at least some CDROM drives (these are in
>> >boxes that have or have had prior Linux versions, OS/2 versions, Win
>> >NT versions, and DOS/Win3.1 with CDROM access, so its not faulty
>> >hardware). ii) you can have faulty hardware show up with some OSes and
>> >not others.
>> >
>> >Thanks to a few guys who responded to my post, but I'm sorry if some
>> >guys say "Gee, I didn't have any problems, therefore your problems are
>> >in your head" or something like that. Same rationalization as "I don't
>> >have cancer, therefore cancer does not exist."
>> >
>> >I've been working with linux (and reading those 800-1000 page books on
>> >linux) since 1999. Yes, I'm happy that I finally got RH EL installed
>> >and that it is working.
>> >
>> >Art S.
>>
>> Ok, how about - "Gee I haven't had problems installing RH on hardware
>> that's listed in their Hardware Compatibility List."
>
> OK, how about I'm Bill Gates, Michael Dell, or the DoD and have the time
> and resources to look up that list (its pretty long and incomplete), then
> go hunting around and buy all the components new (or spend hours tearing
> up my box and maybe find that none of the numbers on any of the boards or
> devices match anything on the list [because the assemblers just get
> 'generic' components that are unlabeled and thats the way a lot of them
> are]) . OK, how about you read what I wrote above again. Understand--
> I'll re-explain it again to you--that since I had ZERO (that means
> 'none') problems with RH 6.2 and 5.2 installs on over a dozen boxes with
> a wide variety of components), I wanted to find out if RH EL had any
> backwards compatibility with vintage '95-'99 CDROM drives. At least one
> guy who posted to my prior post said his drive was late '90s so at least
> there are some out there that might be OK. So, after trying a total of
> five boxes on my desk that have RH 6.2 loaded (and working fine), I can
> say RH EL 3.0 didn't find any of the CDROM drives that both 6.2 and 5.2
> could find. 5.2 is vintage '95-99, and 6.2 is vintage 2000 (its in the
> manuals I have [and I read them, cover to cover]).
>
> I made this post as a FAVOR to people who might be wondering. Fine if
> their boxes install RH EL without problems. They are lucky.
>
> And, for the record, if you want to go back to the newsgroups in 1999 and
> 2000 you will find a LOT (i.e. many) people who were having a lot of
> trouble getting Linux installed and running. And, I'm NOT saying this to
> be anti-linux. Linux is GOOD. Microsoft is BAD.
>
> Are the CD-Rom
>> drives in question IDE drives?
>
> All but one. And, the one that is NOT, has an interface card AND it
> installs either 5.2 or 6.2 just fine. When I got 6.2, I did a fresh
> install over the 5.2 that was on that box. I've even had 5.2 running on a
> 486 box with 8 mb of ram. Command line bootup was fine, GUI was glacial.
> But it worked.
>
>> If not, that's probably your problem.
>
> The problem (not MY problem) is that RH does not put out drivers for
> certain CDROMs any more. ALL of mine are non R-RW, i.e. old. Maybe that
> is the problem (but another guy said he had an old CDROM and it worked).
> Well, now, a used computer I picked up yesterday for $50 installed RH EL
> just fine. So, at least when the CDROM drivers are there, and there is no
> hardware compatibility problem, and there are no defects in the CDROM
> disk (I've had these, too), then you might get an installation.
>
> Back in 1999 when I was just getting into this stuff, I was amazed that I
> was in the sub-population of installers that had zero problems and lots
> of other guys were in the sub-population of installers that had lots of
> problems.
>
> And, the disclaimers on the box are poor. And, the instruction manual has
> a lot of errors in it as well as poor explainations. I say this after
> having read many 800-1000 page books on Linux.
>
> Yes, I 'play' with my computers as well as use them to do gainful
> employment. Now, what is YOUR history of experience?
>
> Art S>
>
>> -Chris
Well, you could always copy the CDs to the one computer that you say you got
going and do a network installation. You don't need CDs for those.
- Next message: Gonzalo: "Re: Installation Problem With Fedora!"
- Previous message: Gonzalo: "Re: Redhat 9 Requirements?"
- In reply to: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Next in thread: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Reply: straydog: "Re: UPDATE ON "WARNING ON RED HAT""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
