Hi, > 4/ many of us millions would very much like to have > the option of using both systems on our computer. They actually have. > 1/ we don't want to have to know the technical > details of how to get to the step4/ above (in the > given table above). This is being worked on. A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, Yoda described the task of installing Linux with the wise words "Always two there are: A master and an apprentice". This has changed much, and the current installer is pretty much usable for medium skilled users (i.e. one that knows what a "keymap" is). > 2/we want one of the following:- All of the things you ask for are already possible, some only if you really install Linux (which means that it will require harddisk space in separate partitions, which is not an easy thing if you didn't plan for it when you installed your current system). > A/ to be able to insert a floppy disk into > our "a" drive , turn on the computer, > the computer then loads DOS or whatever > and eventually after enough time and floppys > have been fead into the drive we see an > up and running version of Linux. This is possible, and in fact the way I installed Linux every time but the last (I got a CD-ROM since :-) ). > or:.. B/ turn on the computer with a floppy > disk "a" which then prompts for a cd-rom > which then loads a version of Linux. Also possible, I think. > or:..c/ option 3 would be to allow Windows to > to boot up and click on a cd-rom drive. > and then the program on the cd would modify > my computer so that Windows and Linux > can run on the same machine. Also possible in theory, although it doesn't make real sense to boot up Windows first, as all newer computers can boot from a CD-ROM anyway, and the older ones are either installed using floppies or booted into MS-DOS (from where we can switch directly into Linux without telling Windows to shut down first). > either :- > 1/ separately Define "separately". I would give it the same meaning as "selectably" here. > 2/ selectably Possible, and in fact the way it is installed on many systems. Depending on your taste, you can have a separate menu or integrate it into Windows' own boot menu (the latter being more work). > 3/ Windows under Linux or Visa versa There is vmware, which does cost money but does exactly this. But unless you have specific reasons for doing it, you don't want that. There is also the wine project, which makes an emulator to run Windows software under Linux. But in fact very few of us have ever needed it. There are replacements for about any piece of software under Windows that run natively under Linux. > 4/ some way the two can interact on > the same machine You can use a shared partition for your data, and if you're running vmware, you have a "network" between the virtual and the real computer. > Please don't take my pleadings to be for > myself personally. There will come a time > when the world wide demand for operating systems > will be huge.This will come from third world > countrys where literacy is low and computer > literacy is even lower. Actually such things are happening right now. That's why Microsoft is giving free Windows to third world schools -- they fear that all the people there will be raised on Linux and be used to it. Simon -- GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4 "There is no way to get a twelve-o-clock flasher online." -- Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie, Welcome To The Internet Help Desk NP: Ordo equilibrio - "The Perplexity Of Hybris. I Glorify Myself"
Description: PGP signature