Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:24:25 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@freebsd.org>, <advocacy@freebsd.org>, <tagdot57@aol.com>, <mongor@mail.com>, <onybear@aol.com> Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks Message-ID: <14888.13097.187777.80105@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <004b01c05bec$a79cbb50$40461418@salem1.or.home.com> References: <14887.12057.451329.642265@guru.mired.org> <004b01c05bec$a79cbb50$40461418@salem1.or.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So go whine at the people you gave the $60 to, not the *volunteers* who are on the -questions list. You might as well drop me from the CC list - the only whining children I have to deal with are mine; except they've grown past acting like you do. Once I read the claim that you paid for the right, I stopped reading. =09<mike xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com> types: > i paid for the right to whine! i still have a $60 box of software th= at is > nothing more than a doorstop. ironically, the only way that i may be = able to > use the software on the freebsd cd's, is to buy a MICROSOFT PRODUCT a= ka > INTERIX. THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERN= EL THAT > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS! if you can make all of the sta= bility > features of freebsd portable to windows, such that freebsd becomes a = package > that windows users can add-on to their existing platform, to function= in the > same way as the ANTICRASH and other utilities that i have running on = my > system, then you may have some sort of redemption in terms of a futur= e. but > based on what i have included in this email below, freebsd and everyo= ne elso > too) has a very limited term of existance in the face of increasing > MICROSOFT encroachment into unix interoperability. UNIX WILL BECOME = A > UTILITY FOR WINDOWS. think i'm crazy? read (the third paragrph) bel= ow! > THE ONLY THING THAT PREVENTED MICROSOFT FROM HAVING ABSOLUTE DOMINANC= E > BEFORE, WAS IT'S LACK OF A VIABLE UNIX IMPLEMENTATION. even APPLE co= mputer > now has a linux platform. when MICROSOFT does with linux what freebs= d did, > and allows linux to run in windows NT/2000, linux and unix will fall = under > the single auspices of MICROSOFT. whether that will be functionally = true or > not is irrelevant. MICROSOFT ONLY HAS TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION OR > APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE INTEROPERABILITY. ONCE MICROSOFT HAS NEGATED = THE > ARGUEMENT OF WINDOWS VS UNIX (BY PORTING UNIX TO WINDOWS) THERE WILL > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS. IT WA= S A > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE ELECTION= ! IT'S > OVER!! >=20 > [this paragraph was written before i added everything about INTERIX i= n the > paragraph above. i only leave this here as history, as freebsd will = shortly > become. MS INTERIX may answer all of the questions and aspirations i= > previously had.] THE QUESTION WAS, WHEN WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO INSTA= LL > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO. I= GEUSS > YOU DIDN'T READ THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT = IT (THE > SUBJECTLINE) IS FOR. IT STATED VERY CLEARLY THE INTENT, PURPOSE AND > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL. i geuss i was wrong to believe the adve= rtising > on the box. i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the > statement of `professional quality', `for serious internet users', et= c.to > mean that freebsd would offer a LOWER LEVEL OF COMPATABLITY than the = linux > systems i had previously used. i brought freebsd because i thought i= t would > give me the level of interoperabilty that i wanted. what i wanted wa= s a > single OSystem that would run linux and unix on one single platform. = the > sad fact is that even if i did get it running, i still wouldn't have = use of > my cdrom or the scsi disk which i had previously used with both linux= > versions (and now NT as well) for the exclusive purpose of virtual me= mory > space. i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to mak= e-up > for the shortcomings of one operating system. freebsd was supposed t= o have > been around longer than linux. why then is it deficient in the area = of > drivers for ancient equipment that were clearly around before linux e= ven > existed? this is really not an issue of age or maturity regarding a= > specific OS. it is a matter of intent. linux strove for universalit= y from > it's inception. maybe i am way off base. i am often wrong. but i d= o know > that i wanted a single OS that would handle unix and linux. (I HAD N= O > DESIRE TO GO BACK TO WINDOWS!!) SINGLE SYSTEM INTEROPERABLITY is wha= t > freebsd claimed to do. that is why i brought it. i thought i would = not be > without ANY of the functionality i came to expect from linux. freebs= d did > not deliver on the satisfaction of my expectations which were in fact= > reasonable, based on the statements i read on the box. superior is j= ust > that, SUPERIOR! it is a term of absolutes. it is was also further c= laimed > in the 800 page handbook (which was my main reason for buying the > power-pak), that freebsd had a higher level of developement than linu= x and > was therefore more stable as a result. (based on these claims, why s= hould i > have expected to not be able to use the equipemnt i was already using= in > linux?) i had no reason to think that freebsd was in being selective= in > it's statements of superiority. that box should have had a big asteR= ISK! on > it. with more emphasis on RISK! as in buy at your own RISK!; the > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be = true. >=20 > now, while you gloat at the apparent triumph the unix community may t= hink it > gained by MS buying INTERIX and now including it as part of the windo= ws > environment, IT IS NOT A TRIUMPH. the bottomline is that MS is not a= bout to > go away. YOU CAN THINK OF THIS MICROSOFT ACQUISITION AS THE ANT OR W= ASP (i > forget which does what to whom) THAT LAYS IT'S EGGS IN THE BODY OF TH= E > OTHER, ONLY TO HAVE IT'S LARVAE EAT IT'S HOST FROM THE INSIDE OUT!! = they > will never forfeit their dominance on the computing community, no mat= ter how > infantile you may think their systems are. MS will eat you from the= inside > out. as i stated in another email, MS can integrate any opensource = unix > (and/or linux) into the windows environment it wants to. and it will= . it > (MS) has already stated that they are going include INTERIX into the > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases. when MS completely integrates = unix > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on = that > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide = that > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE T= HAN > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOW= S (AND > HENCE THE WORLD)! microsoft has the power to make such a pronounceme= nt for > all the world to follow. and once said, the world will do just that,= > FOLLOW! including you! >=20 > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/zipdocs/interix_technotes.exe t= his is > the link for all the documentation regarding the functionaslity of IN= TERIX > in the windows environment. of course you need windows to read it. s= o for > those of you who don't have windows, i'll download and extract it, an= d > repackage it as a zip file to attach to this email. even if you don'= t use > windows at all, it makes sense to know what MICROSOFT intends to do w= ith the > unix community. CANNABALISM couldn't be better! >=20 > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperabi= lity > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality wi= th > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX appli= cation > migration and interoperability solution." DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON= THE > WALL? >=20 > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WIN= DOWS, > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD. WHAT JUSTIFIES= ONE > JUSTIFIES THE OTHER!! Microsoft may get it wrong to start out with, = but > that won't be the case for long. they want absolute domination. and= they > will do whatever it takes to do that. INTERIX is the "shot across th= e bow" > of the unix community. it serves to give notice of the MS agenda to = usurp > any legitimacy of unix as their own. when (previously unix) develope= rs > realize that they have the absolute standard of windows on which to b= uild > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (a= s > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement. it will nolonger be a matte= r of > which version of unix is superior to another. that question will be = MOOT. > it will be as it has always been, a question of profitability and exp= ense. > NO, I DON'T REALLU LIKE THE IDEA OF ONLY HAVING MICROSOFT CONTROLLING= > EVERYTHING. but there are plenty of things in this life that i don't= > particularly like. and my or your disliking the reality of the world= in > which we live, does not change that world. only intelligent directed= action > will do that. my statement about writing the freebsd kernel as a win= dows > dll or exe mayseem reprehensible to you, but ultimately your survival= will > depend on that very act of infiltration. you cannot stop the INEVITA= BILITY > of MICROSOFT porting unix into windows NT/2000. that is clearly thei= r > intent. noone is going to want to write unix apllications that don't= > conform to any standards that MICROSOFT imposes by the dictates of th= eir > massive dominance. >=20 > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/default.asp > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Feb00/InterixPR.asp >=20 > "Interix provided all of the UNIX functionality necessary to efficien= tly > move the code to Windows NT," Klinect said. "One of the key advantage= s was > that the code ported to Interix could still be deployed on the IRS' l= egacy > UNIX systems during its transition to Windows NT, maintaining the req= uired > 24x7 full functionality for this mission-critical application." >=20 > Interix 2.2 eases the migration of existing UNIX applications and scr= ipts by > providing a robust, high-performance environment for running such > applications. It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantag= e of > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite cri= tical > applications. In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows= -based > application development environment to develop native Win32=AE API-ba= sed > applications. Interix 2.2 provides over 300 utilities and tools and i= s fully > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. = Interix > 2.2 is a native subsystem to Windows, providing the highest performan= ce for > running UNIX applications. The Interix 2.2 Software Development Kit, = which > is included with Interix 2.2, supports over 1,900 UNIX APIs and helps= ease > migration of existing UNIX applications to the Interix environment. >=20 > Interix 2.2 provides UNIX users with a familiar environment and set o= f tools > to leverage their existing UNIX expertise. For example, the tools and= > utilities behave exactly as they would on other UNIX systems while > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates t= he need > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting suppo= rt and > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and t= ools. >=20 > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREE= BSD!!> >=20 > Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision = of a > single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterpri= se > platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications. In= terix > 2.2 also helps simplify the administration of heterogeneous environme= nts by > providing UNIX system administrators with access to Windows-based sys= tems > using familiar tools and management strategies, thus reducing system > administration and total cost of ownership. Interix 2.2 also provides= system > administrators with a familiar set of remote administration tools and= batch > support, enabling efficient system administration. >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> > To: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com> > Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:54 PM > Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot di= sks >=20 >=20 > > I hope you enjoyed writing your troll. I only wish you had been mat= ure > > enough to post it to the correct list, or not to post it at all. Th= is > > is QUESTIONS@freebsd.org. You didn't ask any. Since your message wa= s > > nothing but opinion and ranting, it should have gone to > > ADVOCACY@freebsd.org. > > > > If you don't like FreeBSD because it won't do what you want, either= > > don't use, or fix it. If you don't have the expertise to fix it, > > either hire someone, or ask politely. Coming off like a whining > > preschooler won't get you help, it'll just make people mad at you. > > > > <mike > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > this is an updated version of the letter previously sent. >=20 > ORIGINAL MESSAGE > xavian anderson macpherson > http://www.professional3d.com >=20 > i purchased freebsd about two months ago. i have not yet been able t= o get > it to run. i went through the trouble and expense of buying the powe= r-pak > 4.0 so that i would have the 800 page handbook. (i wanted freebsd be= cause i > thought it would be the last system i would ever need to buy.) i als= o > wanted the full 10-cd collection of software. the fact of the matter= is > that the cd's were worthless to me because freebsd would not recogniz= e my > multifunction soundcard as a valid scsi device; which by the way, bo= th > versions of linux (suse and mandrake) and windows nt were able to use= > without any difficulty whatsoever. i have found the repeated claims = of > freebsd superiority to be a bunch of crap! >=20 > i have absolutely no idea how something so superior to windows and li= nux is > unable to recognize the presense of my adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor o= n my > soundblaster 16 card. maybe it's too beneath freebsd to recognize my= lowly > implementation of scsi. i knew that freebsd claimed to be mature; ma= ybe > poor vision is also the side-effect of this protracted maturity. eit= her > that or this maturity has imbued you with yet another ailment common = to > advancing age. that ailment is arrogance. that seems to be the onl= y > explanation for this; as the common response that i have received fr= om many > but not all, has been one of arrogance and contempt that i would dare= to > question the godlike qualities of freebsd. so let me make it persona= l. > there is no problem with my scsi card. i have had three working oper= ating > system to prove it. the problem is with the software (and it's devel= opers) > that freebsd uses. now you may like to claim that linux is a develop= er > system. but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to b= e doing > a much (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of driv= ers > than freebsd. >=20 > i was forced to use the ftp server as my source of installation; nega= ting > the very purpose for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything t= hat is > in the power-pak can be had on the net). after installing the system= from > the net, it ran just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86= 4.0, > which then made my system inoperable. after that i was never able to= get it > to run again. quite some time later after all of this, i tried to cr= eate > bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd. when i went to reboot m= y > system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel= on the > floppies. you make sense of it. i created the disks using a command= line > instruction within NT. the first disks that i made were done with li= nux. > as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot revert to it to m= ake the > bootdisks for freebsd. so either i have a freebsd installation syste= m which > runs from NT without rebooting, or it's unusable. i mean let's get = real. > if linux can (and does) allow for it (linux) to be run on a windows (= not NT) > formatted disk, what the hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the= same > and better (as you so fraudulently claim). and don't tell me how poo= r of a > solution the UMSDOS is. certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there i= s no > excuse for there not being an even better system available from freeb= sd; and > especially for NT. since NT is the highend of the windows system, it= only > makes sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SO= LUTIONS > for NT. i don't want to hear excuses. I WANT RESULTS! >=20 > NT has something that the standard UFS does not have. it has an inte= grated > compressed filesystem. with it, i have increased my storage space by= no > less than 35%. if you had the same feature, i would have 5GB's of > effective space instead of only 3.7GB's available for freebsd. but a= t this > point in time, i am not willing to install freebsd until the aforemen= tion > criteria are met. if someone knows of a single package that i can in= stall > on my existing NT platform, that will allow for the seemless operatio= n of > unix programs as though they were native windows applications, i for = one > would like to hear about it. i just went to the windows site and fou= nd > something they call WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 2.0. i don't know how = long it > had been around or how good it is. i found it by simply typing `wind= owsnt > unix' into my browsers address bar to get a search on those keywords.= >=20 > http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServic= esforUN > IX[759]/ProductOverview.asp >=20 > i just found what may be the very thing i was asking for. after writ= ing the > above paragraph, i went back to the link above and did further readin= g. i > came across something called INTERIX. so once again i did a net sear= ch and > came up with a site that sells it. in reading, i found that it is no= w a MS > unix-product. it seems to provide the unix components to windows NT = class > environments. i will do more reseach on this. and if i find it to b= e > usable, i'll buy it. putting an end to any further questions about f= reebsd > or any other variant of unix or linux. let's face it, MS is in a muc= h > better position to employ unix components such as freebsd than the re= verse. > you might as well look at the writing on the wall. the very openness= that > allows anyone to use freebsd and linux source code, allows MS to add = it to > their own systems without anyone having any right to complain about i= t. as > long as MS uses an open source version of unix, they could do anythin= g they > want to integrate it into the existing windows environment. and all = that > any of you can do is sit back and wipe your eyes. WHIMPER WHIMPER WH= IMPER!! > you have basically written your own obituarary. because windows can = freely > integrate open source systems, but the same is not true of the open s= ource > community. hence there will ultimately be no justification for your > existance. you will be relegated to the status of footnote; and fran= kly the > sooner the better. the system that MS ultimately chooses for their > integrated environment, will become the status quo. if you thought t= hat > windows was dominant before, wait until they put unix interoperabilit= y into > the windows NT/2000 framework. your only choice is to set the lead, = by > beating MS to the punch. and that can only be done if you make freeb= sd and > linux operate from within NT/2000 before MS does. because mock my wo= rd. it > will happen. and you will be left out in the cold with the tears fro= zen to > your face. ; ) >=20 > ALL OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in the paragraphs BELOW IS NOW MOOT. I HA= VE > FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS I HAD ABOVE. INTERIX 2.2 the only= thing > that you will possibly have over MS is price. yes their prices are > rediculous. but then, based on my experience with freebsd and linux,= that > old saying of `you get what you pay for', has never been more truthfu= l. > don't bother bitching about my remarks. as i have already seen that = i am > not the only one who has made them. i simply represent your best hop= e of > survival. i am a windows user that tried linux and then freebsd. an= d i > have done so at an expense that is completely unrecoverable. if you = don't > like my attitude, just remember that there are thousands of prospecti= ve > users just like me who will be no more tolerable of your shortcomings= than i > have been. and your arrogance will be your destruction. something i= will > greatly revel in. you purported to be the final solution to my and > everyoine else's problem with regards to internet computing systems. = that's > a lie. >=20 > http://www.provantage.com/scripts/go.dll/-s/fp_47736 > http://www.provantage.com/FC_MCSB.HTM >=20 > quite frankly, if i find the means to compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome f= or NT, > i would probably never look back to linux or freebsd. i have already= found > numerous unix components to run under windows. and once i have learn= ed how > to use all of them, that will probably settle once and for all the qu= estion > of which system to use. ATT and others make various products which al= low for > the running of unix programs in a windows environment. i had some of= them > installed before i reinstalled NT and thereby erased those systems. = i am > now deciding which ones to reinstall. >=20 > so the bottomline is this. when i am able to install freebsd from a = running > windows nt system without the use of bootdisks (which supply the mean= s to > create and write to UFS, then and only then will i be willing to use > freebsd. i installed NT (six days) after becoming thoughroughly frus= tated > with freebsd. i need to have a completely functional heterogenious > operating environment. one which runs windows nt and freebsd on the = same > computer (preferably with only one filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED). if = freebsd > is not capable of being installed from a running NT-environment witho= ut > having to be rebooted, that is an absolutely indisputable indicator t= hat > freebsd cannot operate cohesively within an NT-system. it's not up to= > microsoft to provide the means to read and write between NTFS and UFS= > without the question of damaging either system. freebsd is the alien= , not > MS. when freebsd generates the code that allows NT to write to UFS a= nd UFS > to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, then and only then will freebsd be a leg= itamate > addition to my NT environment. until then, it's just crap! >=20 >=20 >=20 -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>=09=09=09http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant,=09email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14888.13097.187777.80105>