Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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-questions" 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>