Probably the same reason why Windows NT, 2000 or XP don't have a graphical installer until the later stage of the install. It makes it compatible with most hardware.
I made an image of the NTFS partition, burned to cd. On target computer I made two partitions using XP. I booted the ghost cd and copied partition from image, and all the data it there. However, it won't boot. It didn't write the mbr properly or something. I went into repair console and everything was there.
If I go DISK from image, then this indeed works and XP boots. However, I lose my extra partition that I wanted to keep for backups.
I would also like to be able to re-ghost one partition leaving the second partition free for backups. Currently this doesn't seem possible with Ghost 2003 and NTFS. Any pointers, please?
If I copy the whole disk to image, and then restore the image to disk this would allow two partitions but the second partition would be blank and I lose the whole point of backing up to that partition.
Hi there, I have just installed a nice XP installation and software. I ran sysprep and shutdown pc. I ghosted the ntfs partition with Ghost 2003.
If I use ghost to copy partition on my other pc from the new image file, the data arrives there ok, but no boot. Not a valid system disk. If I then boot from XP cd I can enter repair mode and can view the whole c: drive. All the files have been copied there ok. Some how the MBR is letting the c: partition boot.
I ran fixmbr and fixboot, to no avail. PC still cannot boot from that partition. Maybe the partition is not marked as the active partition?
However, if I copy DISK from image, then all is well and it works. However, then I am left with only one partition for the whole disk. That means to get another partition I have to resize the NTFS partition with Parrtition Magic or something.
How can I copy image to partition, but still have it booting. I am kinda stuck and have about 40 other pcs to install this ghost image to.
Which version of ghost can still run off the floppy instead of installing on Windows? Which can also copy XP NTFS file system correctly? I plan to use sysprep sometime soon.
What version of Ghost can copy NTFS partitions to an image file? I am about to copy some NTFS XP machines and haven't used Ghost since the Ghost5 DOS floppy disk version. Is there still a boot floppy version, I see it gets installed into Windows nowdays. How does this work? And what to watch out for?
I remember reading that they couldn't fix one massive security flaw without redesign on OS from ground up. Thus copping out by saying that if you got physical access to a pc, then you have no security.
So if I point out a flaw in debian then I'm "anti-debian", I guess then all the people pointing out flaws in the US just attacking whoever it feals like really are "anti-american".
No you're not anti-debian, just ignorant. Your argument has been thoroughly rebutted years ago.
No, there isn't (at least not how you are implying). There is a testing distro called "testing". It doesn't provide security updates, and things have to be "tested" before they get there. You cannot and should not use it is a regular distro. like mandrake/fedora etc. It is much like FreeBSD cusrrent, but I assume you meant it more like saying "fedora has current packages"... which also isn't true enough at times, it's just much closer to the truth.
Again more ignorance. Try adding this to your/etc/apt/sources/list:
deb http://security.debian.org sarge/updates main contrib non-free
You can replace "sarge" with "testing" if you prefer this.
I no longer use Ad-aware. After my wife previously installed a heap of spyware with a nice little Donald Duck screensaver, Ad-ware removed the Spyware, but left my TCP/IP stack screwed. Following all the HOWTOs in the world wouldn't fix it completely. Finally I am able to use every internet app on my machine except "ping.exe". For some reason, not matter which address I ping, it resolves the DNS correctly, but pings another IP - the same bogus IP address no matter which url I ping.
After doing a little googling, I found that simply nuking spyware (which is what Adaware does) is no good in some cases, as sometimes Spyware needs to be de-tangled propertly from your system (e.g. newdot.net). SpyBot Search & Destroy claims to do such. My TCP/IP stack isn't 100% ok yet, but that can wait until my next clean install of Windows.
Really nice pic dude. I am wanting to buy my first SLR 35mm film camera. I see a heap of Canon EOS's on eBay/TradeMe. Any tips on what model to get for a newbie? I like b&w photos and out-of-focus shots.
We should kill of Linuxant before they hurt anyone.
But, they are also making native Linux drivers for Conexant Win-modems. This is a good thing for those who are unfortunate enough to be stuck with one.
With a recent cdrecord, you also no longer need ide-scsi in order to use an IDE CD writer.
Ripping audio tracks off of CDs now also uses DMA and should be notably faster.
The advanced linux sound architecture got merged into 2.6. This offers considerably improved functionality over the older OSS drivers, but requires new userspace tools.
Support for plug and play devices such as early ISAPnP cards has improved a lot in the 2.6 kernel.
Users should notice a significant speedup in basic thread operations.
More hotplug drivers have been added, including a fake PCI hotplug driver so people without specialised hardware can test hotplug features.
The much talked about preemption patches made it into 2.6. With this included you should notice much lower latencies especially in demanding multimedia applications.
You should notice considerable throughput improvements over 2.4 due to much reworking of the block and the memory management layers.
The build system is much improved compared to 2.4. You should notice quicker builds, and less spontaneous rebuilds of files on subsequent builds from already built trees.
There are new graphical config tools. "make xconfig" now requires the qt libraries. "make gconfig" uses gtk libraries.
A number of additional filesystems have made their way into 2.6. Currently it supports: ext2, ext3, reiserfs, jfs, xfs, minix, romfs, iso9660, udf, msdos, vfat, ntfs (ro), adfs, amiga ffs, apple macintosh hfs, BeOS befs (ro), bfs, efs (ro), cramfs, free vxfs, os/2 hpfs, qnx4fs, sysvfs, ufs.
The ext3 filesystem has gained indexed directory support, which offers considerable performance gains when used on filesystems with directories containing large numbers of files.
Systems that support the SYSENTER extension (Basically Intel Pentium-II and above, and AMD Athlons) now have a faster method of making the transition from userspace to kernelspace when a syscall is performed.
A generic crypto API has been merged, offering support for various algorithms (HMAC,MD4,MD5,SHA-1,SHA256,SHA384,SHA512,DES,Tripl e DES EDE, Blowfish, Twofish, Serpent, AES, CAST5, CAST6)
2.6 features support for several new architectures: x86-64 (AMD Hammer), ppc64, UML (User mode Linux).
The in-kernel module loader got reimplemented.
Several security issues solved in 2.4 may not yet be forward ported to 2.6. For this reason 2.6.x kernels should not be tested on untrusted systems.
In the case of apt, you aren't making a fair comparison. Apt works because there is a central repository for open source software...to get something similar on the Mac would require thousands of third-party vendors to cooperate on a single platform for delivering upgrades.
Is that "not fair" because they cannot compete? I don't see the difference between this and the current situation where 3rd parties who allow Microsoft to distribute their proprietary WDM drivers. Perhaps the difference is the limitation of the licensing of many apps on these platforms. For, many the licensing wouldn't allow distribution from such a repository.
Where the Mac (and Windows) have an advantage over apt is that neither of them require a recompile when upgrading to a new version of software.
I am not quite sure what you mean by having to recompile. Any recompiling is down by the distribution and placed in binary form on their ftp server for download. apt also has an option to download the source code and compile locally (great for those who believe in cpu optimization compiling).
Furthermore, this "innovation" seems to me to be about useless -- who on God's Green Earth wants to update everything at once?
Personally, I find apt extremely handy (the main reason for not using other dists), because I can have all my software updated (new versions, security fixes, bug fixes, etc) while I sleep (I am stuck with dial-up). That way I can have security updates asap, and the advantage that the bug fixes provide asap. Having everything in one repository also has the advantage of minimalizing the chance of file dependancy and compatibility issues.
However, with my Windows machine, I have to visit WindowsUpdate, nero.com (often), etc, to update my system and most used apps, and also use the LiveUpdate from my Nortons to update my antivirus and firewall, etc. That to me is a clear advantage. Some of these can be automated, some cannot. The central repository for apt and apt itself is very innovative. Whether it's the software design, or the concept, it's still innovation.
As for X Windows and different WM's, that's not so special. Windows has alternative window managers too, and XFree86 runs on Windows AND Mac - I use them constantly.
Sure, aha, right....Can imacs running Mac 0S 9.2 (very common still) run a different WM? Is X Windows a no brainer to install on OS X? Really? Are WM's as trivial to install as in *nix? FYI, Cygwin runs X Windows over the top of the Windows WM. Can you run it INSTEAD of the Windows WM? Or is there another method?
APT: apt is innovative. Can you update every single piece of software on your machine in one hit on a Mac or Windows pc? Ahhh nope. With apt (and provided you only install apps with apt - not a problem there), you can.
X Windows: You aren't stuck with a default Window Manager with Linux (yes with MacOS X you can change WM also nowdays) - you can use any that you like, and installation in most cases is trivial (not quite so easy with Mac OS X).
Neither APT or X Windows are compulsary, and I consider these as innovated in comparison to other OS's.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the same reason why Windows NT, 2000 or XP don't have a graphical installer until the later stage of the install. It makes it compatible with most hardware.
I made an image of the NTFS partition, burned to cd. On target computer I made two partitions using XP. I booted the ghost cd and copied partition from image, and all the data it there. However, it won't boot. It didn't write the mbr properly or something. I went into repair console and everything was there.
If I go DISK from image, then this indeed works and XP boots. However, I lose my extra partition that I wanted to keep for backups.
I would also like to be able to re-ghost one partition leaving the second partition free for backups. Currently this doesn't seem possible with Ghost 2003 and NTFS. Any pointers, please?
If I copy the whole disk to image, and then restore the image to disk this would allow two partitions but the second partition would be blank and I lose the whole point of backing up to that partition.
Hi there, I have just installed a nice XP installation and software. I ran sysprep and shutdown pc. I ghosted the ntfs partition with Ghost 2003.
If I use ghost to copy partition on my other pc from the new image file, the data arrives there ok, but no boot. Not a valid system disk. If I then boot from XP cd I can enter repair mode and can view the whole c: drive. All the files have been copied there ok. Some how the MBR is letting the c: partition boot.
I ran fixmbr and fixboot, to no avail. PC still cannot boot from that partition. Maybe the partition is not marked as the active partition?
However, if I copy DISK from image, then all is well and it works. However, then I am left with only one partition for the whole disk. That means to get another partition I have to resize the NTFS partition with Parrtition Magic or something.
How can I copy image to partition, but still have it booting. I am kinda stuck and have about 40 other pcs to install this ghost image to.
Which version of ghost can still run off the floppy instead of installing on Windows? Which can also copy XP NTFS file system correctly? I plan to use sysprep sometime soon.
What version of Ghost can copy NTFS partitions to an image file? I am about to copy some NTFS XP machines and haven't used Ghost since the Ghost5 DOS floppy disk version. Is there still a boot floppy version, I see it gets installed into Windows nowdays. How does this work? And what to watch out for?
> Show us the homestead! How about "Show us the homepage"? Site has been /.ed
Sarge updates. I am not sure what these are for then. Can anyone shed some light?
I remember reading that they couldn't fix one massive security flaw without redesign on OS from ground up. Thus copping out by saying that if you got physical access to a pc, then you have no security.
However, this contradicts also. So maybe testing does have security fixes after all?
Actually, regarding my second statement. I should retract that, as this page says otherwise. :-)
So if I point out a flaw in debian then I'm "anti-debian", I guess then all the people pointing out flaws in the US just attacking whoever it feals like really are "anti-american".
... which also isn't true enough at times, it's just much closer to the truth.
/etc/apt/sources/list:
No you're not anti-debian, just ignorant. Your argument has been thoroughly rebutted years ago.
No, there isn't (at least not how you are implying). There is a testing distro called "testing". It doesn't provide security updates, and things have to be "tested" before they get there. You cannot and should not use it is a regular distro. like mandrake/fedora etc. It is much like FreeBSD cusrrent, but I assume you meant it more like saying "fedora has current packages"
Again more ignorance. Try adding this to your
deb http://security.debian.org sarge/updates main contrib non-free
You can replace "sarge" with "testing" if you prefer this.
It's only a matter of time when someone (Al Queda?) will use the zombie network for something that will truly be noticed
"We are 100% certain that they have Zombies of Mass Destruction" - GW Bush
More like, when the first BSOD appears, the presenter whispers "control alt delete" into the microphone.
Thanks for that. So setup /p f is different to a normal re-install over itself? Or is it more selective? Thanks for this tip, much appreciated.
AdAware doesn't safely remove some spyware - it can leave your system crippled. I'd recommend Spybot Search and destroy instead.
Thanks for the tip. However, the machine is still using 98SE. Handy tip though for the XP machines!
I no longer use Ad-aware. After my wife previously installed a heap of spyware with a nice little Donald Duck screensaver, Ad-ware removed the Spyware, but left my TCP/IP stack screwed. Following all the HOWTOs in the world wouldn't fix it completely. Finally I am able to use every internet app on my machine except "ping.exe". For some reason, not matter which address I ping, it resolves the DNS correctly, but pings another IP - the same bogus IP address no matter which url I ping.
After doing a little googling, I found that simply nuking spyware (which is what Adaware does) is no good in some cases, as sometimes Spyware needs to be de-tangled propertly from your system (e.g. newdot.net). SpyBot Search & Destroy claims to do such. My TCP/IP stack isn't 100% ok yet, but that can wait until my next clean install of Windows.
Good point. I have plenty of different urls in my /etc/apt/sources.list
Really nice pic dude. I am wanting to buy my first SLR 35mm film camera. I see a heap of Canon EOS's on eBay/TradeMe. Any tips on what model to get for a newbie? I like b&w photos and out-of-focus shots.
Linuxant have built native Linux drivers for Conexant win-modems. Not sure about any plans for printers though.
We should kill of Linuxant before they hurt anyone.
But, they are also making native Linux drivers for Conexant Win-modems. This is a good thing for those who are unfortunate enough to be stuck with one.
In the case of apt, you aren't making a fair comparison. Apt works because there is a central repository for open source software...to get something similar on the Mac would require thousands of third-party vendors to cooperate on a single platform for delivering upgrades.
Is that "not fair" because they cannot compete? I don't see the difference between this and the current situation where 3rd parties who allow Microsoft to distribute their proprietary WDM drivers. Perhaps the difference is the limitation of the licensing of many apps on these platforms. For, many the licensing wouldn't allow distribution from such a repository.
Where the Mac (and Windows) have an advantage over apt is that neither of them require a recompile when upgrading to a new version of software.
I am not quite sure what you mean by having to recompile. Any recompiling is down by the distribution and placed in binary form on their ftp server for download. apt also has an option to download the source code and compile locally (great for those who believe in cpu optimization compiling).
Furthermore, this "innovation" seems to me to be about useless -- who on God's Green Earth wants to update everything at once?
Personally, I find apt extremely handy (the main reason for not using other dists), because I can have all my software updated (new versions, security fixes, bug fixes, etc) while I sleep (I am stuck with dial-up). That way I can have security updates asap, and the advantage that the bug fixes provide asap. Having everything in one repository also has the advantage of minimalizing the chance of file dependancy and compatibility issues.
However, with my Windows machine, I have to visit WindowsUpdate, nero.com (often), etc, to update my system and most used apps, and also use the LiveUpdate from my Nortons to update my antivirus and firewall, etc. That to me is a clear advantage. Some of these can be automated, some cannot. The central repository for apt and apt itself is very innovative. Whether it's the software design, or the concept, it's still innovation.
Tell me, does apt update the nvidia driver automatically too?
For those who use Debian, it sure does: http://packages.debian.org/...
As for X Windows and different WM's, that's not so special. Windows has alternative window managers too, and XFree86 runs on Windows AND Mac - I use them constantly.
Sure, aha, right....Can imacs running Mac 0S 9.2 (very common still) run a different WM? Is X Windows a no brainer to install on OS X? Really? Are WM's as trivial to install as in *nix? FYI, Cygwin runs X Windows over the top of the Windows WM. Can you run it INSTEAD of the Windows WM? Or is there another method?
APT:
apt is innovative. Can you update every single piece of software on your machine in one hit on a Mac or Windows pc? Ahhh nope. With apt (and provided you only install apps with apt - not a problem there), you can.
X Windows:
You aren't stuck with a default Window Manager with Linux (yes with MacOS X you can change WM also nowdays) - you can use any that you like, and installation in most cases is trivial (not quite so easy with Mac OS X).
Neither APT or X Windows are compulsary, and I consider these as innovated in comparison to other OS's.