Hi guys,
I downloaded the openSuSE 10.1 ISOs with BitTorrent, but discovered that they are too large to burn to the CD-Rs at my disposal. So, I thought I'd have a go at putting them up on my LAN's FTP server to see if I could do a (local) network install.
I downloaded, burned and booted from the mini ISO, and I've managed to get as far as the installer logging into my FTP server and requesting /boot/i386/root, which, unsuprisingly, doesn't exist, but it's not a bad start for a first attempt...
Any ideas on how to go about this - converting half-a-dozen ISOs to something I can put on my FTP server and point the network installer at?
The reason I'm doing this is because I've already really exceeded my ISP's bandwidth limit by downloading 3.5GB of ISOs (so I can't do it again by, for instance, installing from kernal.org), but as a result I have the install binaries on my LAN, it's just that I can't get 'em into the target machine in the originally intended manner (on half-a-dozen CD-Rs, 'cause they're too big). It's worth a try, but I don't know enough about the format the network installer expects. It would be perfectly possible to install straight from ISOs on an FTP site, but...
Oh, and one more complication, I only have WinXP boxes at my disposal right now - nothing that can run *nix tools...
All advice, including "don't bother", welcomed.
Many thanks,
PJ.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 8:23 AM, in message
4564BFDA.707@yahoo.co.uk, CwCrei cwcrei@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi guys,
I downloaded the openSuSE 10.1 ISOs with BitTorrent, but discovered
that
they are too large to burn to the CD- Rs at my disposal. So, I
thought
I'd have a go at putting them up on my LAN's FTP server to see if I could do a (local) network install.
I downloaded, burned and booted from the mini ISO, and I've managed
to
get as far as the installer logging into my FTP server and requesting
/boot/i386/root, which, unsuprisingly, doesn't exist, but it's not a
bad
start for a first attempt...
Create a structure like;
<your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD2 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD3 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD4 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD5
And then copy the CD's into those directories. Point the install to <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1. The install will then automatically assume that CD2...CD5 is there and use them.
Many thanks,
PJ.
Cheers, Magnus
Magnus Boman wrote:
Create a structure like;
<your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD2 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD3 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD4 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD5
And then copy the CD's into those directories. Point the install to <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1. The install will then automatically assume that CD2...CD5 is there and use them.
Thanks for your help. I tried. It doesn't work. Now the installer just asks the FTP server for /suse-10.1/CD1/boot/i386/root, and aborts in the same manner when it doesn't find it...
... there is a more than usual chance that I'm missing something here. It would appear that I need to tell the installer that it's looking at an ISO. What filename does the installer expect?
Thanks again. :)
PJ.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2006-11-22 at 22:05 -0000, CwCrei wrote:
Magnus Boman wrote:
Create a structure like;
<your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD2 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD3 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD4 <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD5
And then copy the CD's into those directories. Point the install to <your ftp directory>/suse-10.1/CD1. The install will then automatically assume that CD2...CD5 is there and use them.
Thanks for your help. I tried. It doesn't work. Now the installer just asks the FTP server for /suse-10.1/CD1/boot/i386/root, and aborts in the same manner when it doesn't find it...
Huh?
... there is a more than usual chance that I'm missing something here. It would appear that I need to tell the installer that it's looking at an ISO. What filename does the installer expect?
It is waiting for the contents of the iso file, not the iso file itself...
In linux, you can mount the iso files and see what is inside.
Alternatively, you can tell the installer where to find the iso image of the install source.
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R.
On 2006-11-22 15:23, CwCrei wrote:
Hi guys,
I downloaded the openSuSE 10.1 ISOs with BitTorrent, but discovered that they are too large to burn to the CD-Rs at my disposal. So, I thought I'd have a go at putting them up on my LAN's FTP server to see if I could do a (local) network install.
<snip>
http://en.opensuse.org/Network_Installation_Source
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 16:26, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s²
Is that the same as 32 ft/sec/sec as I was taught? Back in the dark ages. It does help to have enough space to have the acceleration flatten out to terminal velocity, then Windows is properly configured.
On 2006-11-23 00:22, Stevens wrote:
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 16:26, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s²
Is that the same as 32 ft/sec/sec as I was taught? Back in the dark
I have a vague memory of such a number (I am from Canada, which for the past 30 years has been an enlightened country ;-) ). Most likely they are the same thing.
ages. It does help to have enough space to have the acceleration flatten out to terminal velocity, then Windows is properly configured.
But that requires one have ready access to an aircraft or the top of a rather tall building, or be free to travel to the Grand Canyon. In practice, any close approximation to terminal velocity (ie. within 120 or 130 km/h) is sufficient.
Stevens wrote:
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 16:26, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s²
Is that the same as 32 ft/sec/sec as I was taught? Back in the dark ages. It does help to have enough space to have the acceleration flatten out to terminal velocity, then Windows is properly configured.
Yes. 1 metre is approx 3 1/3 feet. It's amazing people are still using those ancient measurements in the modern world. You can blame Reagan for that one.
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 07:14 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Stevens wrote:
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 16:26, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s²
Is that the same as 32 ft/sec/sec as I was taught? Back in the dark ages. It does help to have enough space to have the acceleration flatten out to terminal velocity, then Windows is properly configured.
Yes. 1 metre is approx 3 1/3 feet. It's amazing people are still using those ancient measurements in the modern world. You can blame Reagan for that one.
Thats meter in modern English. As to metric system its wholly inadequate for construction where there is a fudge factor appropriate to an imprecise world where the earth itself is imperfect as is the settling of individual structures. Try baking a cake by metrics you will go nuts when it comes time to use eggs which are of various sizes. Best to use the older system and good chefs judgement.
Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
Yes. 1 metre is approx 3 1/3 feet. It's amazing people are still using those ancient measurements in the modern world. You can blame Reagan for that one.
Thats meter in modern English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
As to metric system its wholly inadequate for construction where there is a fudge factor appropriate to an imprecise world where the earth itself is imperfect as is the settling of individual structures. Try baking a cake by metrics you will go nuts when it comes time to use eggs which are of various sizes. Best to use the older system and good chefs judgement.
?????
What rubbish! Precision is precision, no matter what system you use. How does it make a difference whether or not you use the metric system? I guess the rest of the world can't build houses or bake a cake. I don't recall ever seeing a metric or imperial chicken. Try telling the French they don't know how to cook. (Try telling them anything for that matter. <g>)
One huge advantage to the metric system is the abandonment of hoary, arbitrary units in favour of a consistent and logical system.
James Knott wrote:
One huge advantage to the metric system is the abandonment of hoary, arbitrary units in favour of a consistent and logical system.
I agree, I wish we would have completely converted in the 70's. As it is now, I have to buy two sets of tools (still haven't figured out the logic behind an SAE bolt with a Metric nut). Ah well, at least we still drive on the correct side of the road :-)
Russ
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 15:24 -0500, James Knott wrote:
What rubbish! Precision is precision, no matter what system you use. How does it make a difference whether or not you use the metric system? I guess the rest of the world can't build houses or bake a cake. I don't recall ever seeing a metric or imperial chicken. Try telling the French they don't know how to cook. (Try telling them anything for that matter. <g>)
One huge advantage to the metric system is the abandonment of hoary, arbitrary units in favour of a consistent and logical system.
Like the hunk of rock which is the basis of the kilo which is stored in switzerland since before WWII.
I agree about the french.
On 2006-11-29 12:49, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 15:24 -0500, James Knott wrote:
<snip> One huge advantage to the metric system is the abandonment of hoary, arbitrary units in favour of a consistent and logical system.
Like the hunk of rock which is the basis of the kilo which is stored in switzerland since before WWII.
Actually, it's a hunk of platinum-iridium, and it's always been in Sèvres, France :-)
But I think James was referring to the strange numerical combinations found in the Imperial system, such as 7000 grains in a pound (unless it's a Troy pound, aka. apothecaries' pound, which is 5760 grains, but those are different grains too), or 16 ounces in a pound (same caveat: unless it's a Troy pound, and the ounces aren't the same there either), or 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile (unless it's a nautical mile, at least they use the same foot)... etc etc.
:-)
I agree about the french.
At least in Paris, you can say "bon weekend" and everyone will understand you -- try that in Montreal, and they look at you funny :-)
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 15:01 -0600, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-29 12:49, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
:-)
I agree about the french.
At least in Paris, you can say "bon weekend" and everyone will understand you -- try that in Montreal, and they look at you funny :-)
Same thing in Quebec Canada. They try to out snooty their cousins.
On Saturday 25 November 2006 20:40, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
...
Thats meter in modern English. As to metric system its wholly inadequate for construction where there is a fudge factor appropriate to an imprecise world where the earth itself is imperfect as is the settling of individual structures. ...
A meter is no longer defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole, it has a definition based on properties of matter and energy that are not sensitive to temperature and not subject to difficult and inherently imprecise geodetic measurements.
In fact, a meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. The second is defined by a nuclear oscillation in cesium, specifically:
"The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom"
Other metric system units have similarly objective definitions.
Randall Schulz
On 2006-11-26 15:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
<snip> "The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom"
Whatever that might mean to nearly everyone on this list except me :-)
Other metric system units have similarly objective definitions.
They are actually highly subjective -- they all depend on a specific measuring apparatus which depends crucially on the electromagnetic interaction (the only one we can observe directly). To suggest that the gravitational interaction must necessarily have the same fundamental definition of length (or time) is highly presumptive, hence subjective.
Oh, btw, welcome to opensuse-physics :-)
On Sunday 26 November 2006 12:55, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Other metric system units have similarly objective definitions.
They are actually highly subjective --
And all these units were defined prior to the availability of the technology used to arrive at the modern definitions.
Similarly the imperial units have highly technical definitions. No one measures the kings foot anymore.
Oddly enough, metric countries do not rush to adopt the all but forgotten French invention of metric time measurement.
On Sunday 26 November 2006 23:02, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 26 November 2006 12:55, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Other metric system units have similarly objective definitions.
They are actually highly subjective --
And all these units were defined prior to the availability of the technology used to arrive at the modern definitions.
Similarly the imperial units have highly technical definitions.
Yes they have. They are defined by their relation to the metric units. For example, the yard is defined officially as 0.9144 metres.
No one measures the kings foot anymore.
No one ever did. When was the last time you saw someone with a foot 30.48 cm long?
Oddly enough, metric countries do not rush to adopt the all but forgotten French invention of metric time measurement.
Yes, it is odd that we still use Babylonian time keeping.
Note though that although decimal (not metric, we are all using metric time - look it up) time was invented around the same time as the metric system, it was never in use, not even in France where it was invented.
On Sunday 26 November 2006 13:55, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-26 15:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
...
They are actually highly subjective -- they all depend on a specific measuring apparatus which depends crucially on the electromagnetic interaction (the only one we can observe directly). To suggest that the gravitational interaction must necessarily have the same fundamental definition of length (or time) is highly presumptive, hence subjective.
I don't know what you mean by "gravitational interaction ... hav[ing] the same ... definition of length."
Anyway, there's a difference between subjective (residing in the consciousness of the observer) and arbitrary. Most units require arbitrary definitions. They are not, however, subjective.
(And don't give me any of that BS about quantum mechanics bringing the observer's consciousness to bear on what is real or on what transpires in the realm of matter / energy and space / time. Interactions occur and are necessary to measure a physical phenomenon. A mind is not.)
Randall Schulz
On Sunday 26 November 2006 23:40, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 26 November 2006 13:55, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2006-11-26 15:16, Randall R Schulz wrote:
...
They are actually highly subjective -- they all depend on a specific measuring apparatus which depends crucially on the electromagnetic interaction (the only one we can observe directly). To suggest that the gravitational interaction must necessarily have the same fundamental definition of length (or time) is highly presumptive, hence subjective.
I don't know what you mean by "gravitational interaction ... hav[ing] the same ... definition of length."
The wording is a bit odd, but my guess is he is referring to relativistic effects. A metre is only a metre in your own frame of reference, if someone else carries a metre stick but travels relative to you, you will not measure the stick as one metre because of contraction in the direction of travel
And yes, this is off topic, even for a sunday evening
-
Anders Johansson -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Carlos E. R. -
CwCrei -
Darryl Gregorash -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
Magnus Boman -
Randall R Schulz -
Russ -
Stevens