where is the new meeting place?

[Ronald Maggio]

On Friday 12 April 2002 12:05, you wrote:
> I wasn't asking why you considered it beneficial for offers, but why you
> personally find it easier that way.  So if I undertand you
> correctly, if you wanted to dual boot Win9x & WinXP, or Win2000 & BeOS,
> something non-Linux related, you'd encourage 1 OS per HD as well?
>
I think your getting off the track here. First off I stated that it might be 
better to suggest to others that if they wanted to install multiable OS's 
that one would have more than one way of installing them, and I have found 
that its less confusing to some that as we all know not everyone is a guru.
When we install linux it names partitions in a different way then DOS does.
Lets say newbie that may not be aware of how in the heck to install
Linux that there are many way to approach this installation. Yes it does 
sound a little out of the norm to use a drive for each OS to be installed.
But it is a lot more easier to allot a drive for each one than to play around 
with partitioning a drive for dualbooting! I was only offering a suggestion 
not a carved in stone opinion. I have smaller drives in my (older) units and 
two systems dualboot with two drives. One for windows and another for linux.
I have an older system with Win NT workstation and Mandrake 8.0 and another 
with Win 98 SE and RedHat 7.2 I found it a whole heck of allot easier to do 
an install this way because if I messed up all I had to do was format the 
drive with linux. The windows drive was left untouched, and if I needed to 
get into it was do fdisk /mbr and be and do a linux install later I would be 
in like flint to my windows drive. No problem doing this way. There are as I 
said many ways to approach a dualboot installation this is one way that I 
often suggest, but if someone has larger drives like 40 gigs or larger well 
thats up to the user to pick and choose which way to go. 


> > Well I'd think you would agree that we should never assume that everyone
> > is at the same level of experience and
> > that there is more then one way to approach an installation. The best way
> > to get someone on the right track is by showing them the easiest way. To
> > assume a higher level of expertise like a systems admin or such would be
> > at first meeting the person a little much. My opinion stated that there
> > are different ways of installing XP and RedHat together and since we are
> > trying to get people accustomed to linux, I thought the easiest way is
> > the best approach. Yes you can install both OS's on the same drive, but
> > some have said at meetings and through this list that instead of trying
> > to get both to live with each other on the same hard drive its easier to
> > install them on different drives. (ie: any windows/linux installation)
> > Which I do agree with, but that is just an opinion not carved in stone!
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > > Dege
> > >
> > > So Many Things in Life Would Be Really Funny
> > > .... If They Weren't Happening To Me
>
> Dege
>
> So Many Things in Life Would Be Really Funny
> .... If They Weren't Happening To Me