Re: Problem installing Slink on UDB/Multia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Martin Lucina wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 05:07:33PM -0400, Nathan P. Hawkins III wrote:
>
> > Or better yet, use aboot. With the ARC/Milo scheme I had problems almost
> > every time I booted. And it's slow. SRM and aboot is much faster, and it's
> > the easiest boot loader to reconfigure I've seen for Linux. To change
> > kernels, you can just copy the file and reboot. I love it!
>
> I use SRM/MILO with no problems. The speedup offered by aboot would not make
> much difference now that SRM spends >10s testing the 160MB of RAM I have in
> the box.
I had other problems than speed with ARC and MILO... I had a production
system that kept rebooting (hardware problem) and wouldn't come back up.
ARC had decided that the date was wrong, and just sat there. Reminded me
of NT.
> > There are just a couple of catches:
> >
> > 1. you have to partition your disk BSD-style (use fdisk, not cfdisk)
>
> And the BSD-disklabel code in fdisk is rather broken. Maybe I should write
> disklabel code for cfdisk... hmm...
It's rather worse on the i386 version. Take a look at the source to fdisk
and you'll notice that BSD-disklabel is handled differently according to
which architecture it's compiled on. That's really broken.
Personally, I like fdisk better than cfdisk. cfdisk is not a really well
done console interface.
> > 2. aboot doesn't seem to like compressed kernels (easy fix for that)
> > 3. it's not the best documented setup I've seen... (see the SRM-HOWTO)
>
> Also note that SRM/aboot IIRC will eat a lot (4.5mb?) of memory.
Maybe some clever person with time on their hands will do something about
that. Seems to me that something more like SRM would be nice. For that
matter, what's wrong with actually using SRM itself?
---Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQDVAwUBNzuEmqUqhOQsTZ+hAQEXQQX/V9yG9AAWPnFeArpg4TdK1ftARvgwjo6i
FyuoZrAgSHQ2oWRzQKxeTlp1OnJHEzqs8pngPnbjkW37200CkjMOnys1Jm7kvec6
h2jyQy73/UePKZtquX+Ax4MQsZ/TI9Tqzpa4YBIKn8YYhhFsTSZC4IPTj2qTVAvG
nC+UkupDFX/H+EGrzamNY9wrcowV0+Ci/od/btMcjm6CJnOwh1EHCv/GIr4j60K0
pkuAXeel9hCGs+XFXZ6nRDXXvUjtGS18
=IVyZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: