On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 20:04 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Jeff Vian wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 18:56 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > > [snip] > > >>I stand by my recommendations. First get a system which can boot > >>WinXP, and can boot Linux using GRUB on a floppy. Then install the > >>GRUB on the boot sector of the intended boot disc, and let the > >>XP boot manager manage the boot. When that works, if one is > >>adventurous enough, one can try saving the MBR to a file on a floppy, > >>and try installing GRUB (or whatever) into the MBR. It won't work > >>from there on my machine. If GRUB won't work from there, then the MBR > >>can be replaced. > >> > > > > > > All of us have different hardware. Some hardware is picky and has to be > > treated with kid gloves and babied. Most is very standard and "just > > works". > > I think the use of the term FsCKED UP DISINFORMATION was extreme. > I have never used that term, Read my post again. FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) hardly has the meaning you are attributing to it (in most circles at least). FUD has been around as an acronym for a LONG time with the meaning I use -- more than ten years IIRC. I believe it was originally attributed to the way M$ spread doubt about Linux many years ago, with the intent of keeping users on a system they already knew and were familiar with and discouraging competition. (Are you familiar with the anti-trust lawsuit.) It may have been bastardized to your meaning, but yours is not the original, and certainly not what I said. > > If you read the archives here, very few have ever had the extreme > > problems you relate, although I do not doubt your word or experiences. > > Hmm. That contrasts with your use of the term DISINFORMATION. > No, the FUD comes from telling people in an authoritative manner that YOUR experience is what ALL can expect. In fact few will have the problem you related and your attitude and delivery spreads -- well Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Both about the software and about the prospective users ability to master it. In fact what should be noted is that some few have your bad experience and with certain hardware and conditions it can occur, but most have no problems at all. > > Certainly some brand name boxes are configured to not allow changes of > > software, and some go into disaster-recovery mode if the boot sector has > > been rewritten (can you say BIOS protected with a hidden recovery > > partition). > > That is exactly my situation. And the situation with many people using > Compaq/HP equipment. > > > I still stand by my comment. Do not spread FUD about your unique > > circumstances as if they are the rule rather than the exception. > > _Standard_ hardware does not have that issue, while _some_ brand name > > specific hardware does. > > Well, either you don't know the meaning of the acronymn, or think > that the use of that term is not offensive to the one against whom > it is used. I'm accustomed to politer language on this forum. > > There is a lot of Compaq/HP equipment out there for sale. I don't > consider it to be Non-Standard. > I did not say non-standard, I said brand-name vs standard off-the-shelf without the brand-name. You have to admit every manufacturer makes their product as unique as they can to lock the purchaser into their service. Your experience was engineered by the hardware manufacturer to do exactly what it did. > And even if the install works 99+% of the time, that is no comfort > for the one who gets bitten. A slow but sure step-by-step procedure > is much better, especially when dealing with someone who does not > know what a disc partition is. It's much easier to recover when one > has his feet under him, and is familiar with other boot techniques > from the outset, and knows exactly at what step things failed. > Agreed. Yet if we are discouraged from even trying what is the point? A better approach would be to give all the facts.... Your specific hardware provided your experience.... Others seem to have no problems.
