Installation Suse 7.3 or 8.0 in the first 1024 cylinders
I am about to install Suse 8.0 but delayed it to clarify some points first. WIN98 is already installed. I have been told again and again that at least the boot partition must be located within the first 1024 cylinders of the first hd. Later I was told that this does not matter any longer since version 7.1 (?) or so. On the contrary Suse should be put at the end of the hd (I only have one: 30 GB). Otherwise it might be difficult to create 'boot', 'root', and 'swap'. Now the '1024 cylinders question' comes up again in this correspondence, i.e. Suse or at least the boot partition should be placed within said limit. Now what is correct for v. 7.3 and v. 8.0? Using Partition Magic 6 I have left 6 GB of unallocated space at the end of the hd. I have not yet decided whether to use dual booting (only Lilo, Power Quest-BM + Lilo [latter in suse boot partition] or floppy for Suse and no BM in boot sector at all).
hwm@onetel.net.uk [ Sat, 04 May 2002 13:18:49 +0100]:
Later I was told that this does not matter any longer since version 7.1 (?) or so. On the contrary Suse should be put at the end of the hd (I only have one: 30 GB).
If your BIOS supports LBA addressing (any sufficiently modern BIOS does so), the 1024 cylinder barrier is moot, as LILO can use it.
Now what is correct for v. 7.3 and v. 8.0? Using Partition Magic 6 I have left 6 GB of unallocated space at the end of the hd.
6 Gig should suffice.
I have not yet decided whether to use dual booting (only Lilo, Power Quest-BM + Lilo [latter in suse boot partition] or floppy for Suse and no BM in boot sector at all).
Depends on your preferences. I don't know what features PQBM has, so I can't make recommendations, but either LILO for both Windows and Linux or PQBM and LILO in the root partition of Linux should work. Philipp -- I do read the list so additional private mails aren't necessary.
Philipp Thomas wrote:
hwm@onetel.net.uk [ Sat, 04 May 2002 13:18:49 +0100]:
Later I was told that this does not matter any longer since version 7.1 (?) or so. On the contrary Suse should be put at the end of the hd (I only have one: 30 GB).
If your BIOS supports LBA addressing (any sufficiently modern BIOS does so), the 1024 cylinder barrier is moot, as LILO can use it.
Now what is correct for v. 7.3 and v. 8.0? Using Partition Magic 6 I have left 6 GB of unallocated space at the end of the hd.
6 Gig should suffice.
I have not yet decided whether to use dual booting (only Lilo, Power Quest-BM + Lilo [latter in suse boot partition] or floppy for Suse and no BM in boot sector at all).
Depends on your preferences. I don't know what features PQBM has, so I can't make recommendations, but either LILO for both Windows and Linux or PQBM and LILO in the root partition of Linux should work.
Philipp
--
I do read the list so additional private mails aren't necessary. ----- Thanks for the advice This and the previous letter was sent to suse-linux-e@suse.com only. ----- But not to any private address. ---- I do not quite understand: Sometimes my e mails to the list only are ---- published twice on the list.
hwm@onetel.net.uk [ 20020507 08:31:31 +0100]:
-- I do read the list so additional private mails aren't necessary.
Thanks for the advice
You're welcome :)
This and the previous letter was sent to suse-linux-e@suse.com only.
Yes, I do know that and this was directed at you specifically. As you can see from the above quote, this was a signature, not a PS. So it wasn't meant at you directly but for anyone that wants to reply to my mail. Too many people sent me replies by private mails in addition to the reply on the list, seemingly not caring that this annoys most people. So I thought that maybe a signature like that would give them a hint. cheers Philipp
Philipp Thomas tapped away at the keyboard with:
hwm@onetel.net.uk [ 20020507 08:31:31 +0100]:
I do read the list so additional private mails aren't necessary.
Thanks for the advice
You're welcome :)
This and the previous letter was sent to suse-linux-e@suse.com only.
Yes, I do know that and this was directed at you specifically. As you can see from the above quote, this was a signature, not a PS. So it wasn't meant at you directly but for anyone that wants to reply to my mail.
Too many people sent me replies by private mails in addition to the reply on the list, seemingly not caring that this annoys most people.
Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default.
So I thought that maybe a signature like that would give them a hint.
-- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!
* Bernd Felsche (bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au) [020507 18:39]: :: ::Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? ::That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default. :: Because people will screw this up as well...a lot of people still can't grasp the notion of " If one is on the list..there isn't a need to CC" concept. It's not the listmanagers resposiblity to teach people to use their mailer. If you want more on why I would give the list admin an email or put this in procmail. -- :0f * ^X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e | formail -bfi "Reply-To:suse-linux-e@suse.com" -- The above should make it so every email goes back to the list. -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -GC --=====-----=====--
Ben Rosenberg tapped away at the keyboard with:
* Bernd Felsche (bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au) [020507 18:39]: :: ::Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? ::That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default. ::
Because people will screw this up as well...a lot of people still can't grasp the notion of " If one is on the list..there isn't a need to CC" concept. It's not the listmanagers resposiblity to teach people to use their mailer. If you want more on why I would give the list admin an email or put this in procmail.
Of course it's not the list manager's job. But even the "most experienced" users have moments of weakness and let their tools get the better of them. I've been using elm since about 1989 - it _replies_ to the Reply-To:, and in its absence to the From:. There are a lot of MUA's around which don't make it clear where a response is being sent.
Mail-Followup-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
I've snipped the headers from your message to show something that should be equivalent to a Reply-To: and doesn't _add_ anything but confusion and complexity. It's only because some MUA's incorrectly handled Reply-To: when responding to "all". In practice, adding Mail-Followup-To doesn't fix the problem of incorrect handling. It only confuses the issue and what will probably happen is that Mail-Followup-To gets (mis-)handled the same way as Reply-To; _if_ they recognize the header at all. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!
Bernd Felsche
I've been using elm since about 1989 - it _replies_ to the Reply-To:, and in its absence to the From:.
Now look at my mail header. I'm using my suse address for from but set Reply-To to my private address. This is fully correct but requires that those responding *think* before pressing that send button or alternatively a MUA that has a 'list reply' function/button (L in mutt by default AFAIR). I know what I'm talking about because my MUA is a Windows Program I happen to like, Forté Agent. This MUA has no list reply, so I have to use 'reply to all', which in turn forces me to play cut & paste between To and CC to direct the mail to the list. This is just a tiny bit of extra discipline. I think that most people are just too lazy to do the extra work. It's the same with those heaps of mails on this list with text above and a full quote following. What would those people think if someone would attach a complete copy of their letter to his reply snail mail? Philipp
Bernd Felsche
Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default.
Please, just think for a while and you'll probably see why that's a bad idea. It can cause endless loops. Just think of the case where the mailbox of someone subscribed to the list is full and the mail server for his domain starts sending mails to those that wrote to the list, telling them of the delivery failure. Now if the list manager sets reply-to to the list and those notification mails go the list .... You get the picture? For the rest I'll let Chris expand why this is a bad idea. Philipp
* Philipp Thomas (pthomas@suse.de) [020508 15:19]:
Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default.
Please, just think for a while and you'll probably see why that's a bad idea.
Oh my God...this topic has come up again. The last time it came up it got to the point where I was accused of being "no better the Taliban" because of my refusal to insert reply-tos. I'm not interested in going through this again. It never ceases to amaze me how riled up people get about this. Bernd, please go read the suse-linux-e FAQ about this. After that, search through the archives for the usual sort of crap that you are probably used to seeing on mailing lists (vacation messages, fetchmail errors, bounces, luser mail admin errors, etc.) and, guess what? With very very few exceptions(1) you won't find them. I think that's pretty good considering that suse-linux and suse-linux-e are some of the most active mailinglists in the world(2). We do not, nor will we ever as long as I'm in charge of the lists, insert reply-tos(3). I very seriously doubt you have an argument for them that will convince me otherwise but if you think you do send it to me privately so this thread doesn't continue any longer than it has to. Cheers, 1) three in the last three years to be exact, two were intentional "attacks" from someone else and the third was a virsus infested MS exchange server spewing mail at the suse-oracle list, hardly our fault. 2) See http://www.geocrawler.com/. Either suse-linux or LKML are in the lead usually, with suse-linux-e usually in third. 3) We have two exceptions to this: suse-blinux and suse-blinux-d. Both of these lists set a reply-to for the list. These lists are for blind users who read the mail on a Braille pad. It was explained to me that because of some strange interaction of how the Braille display work and pine it's very hard to determine that a mail should be sent to the list and not to the sender. Of course, the obvious suggestion is that the people use a decent mail client like mutt that knows how to handle mailing lists but I didn't want to argue. -- -ckm
Christopher Mahmood tapped away at the keyboard with:
* Philipp Thomas (pthomas@suse.de) [020508 15:19]:
Why doesn't the list manager set Reply-To: accordingly? That'll mean a reply will go only to the list by default.
Please, just think for a while and you'll probably see why that's a bad idea.
Oh my God...this topic has come up again. The last time it came up it got to the point where I was accused of being "no better the Taliban" because of my refusal to insert reply-tos. I'm not interested in going through this again. It never ceases to amaze me how riled up people get about this.
Must have been when I was unsubscribed due to the list volume. Reminds me...
Bernd, please go read the suse-linux-e FAQ about this. After that, search through the archives for the usual sort of crap that you are probably used to seeing on mailing lists (vacation messages, fetchmail errors, bounces, luser mail admin errors, etc.) and, guess what? With very very few exceptions(1) you won't find them. I think that's pretty good considering that suse-linux and suse-linux-e are some of the most active mailinglists in the world(2).
Bounces, etc do occur on other lists, but that's not even strongly correlated with the presence of a Reply-To: header. Rather; it's to do more with the quality of list manager (software).
We do not, nor will we ever as long as I'm in charge of the lists, insert reply-tos(3). I very seriously doubt you have an argument for them that will convince me otherwise but if you think you do send it to me privately so this thread doesn't continue any longer than it has to.
You mean like you not setting the reply-to to suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com?? :-) Fine. I'm getting off the list anyway because I've almost exceeded my Internet traffic quota for the month; and it's only the 9th. It's no skin off my nose if you do or don't. You understand of course that without munging; that replies will by default go only the originator - which IMO does the list no good as queries appear to go unanswered, answers aren't archived, and replies to "all" will result in the duplicates being received by the original poster. You won't get people to change their MUA unless there's a compelling reason to do so. If it doesn't work properly with one mailing list, they're more likely to misuse the MUA on that list than to learn how to use another MUA for reading the list. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!
On Thursday 09 May 2002 03:55, Bernd Felsche wrote:
Christopher Mahmood tapped away at the keyboard with:
* Philipp Thomas (pthomas@suse.de) [020508 15:19]:
Oh my God...this topic has come up again.
As it will, from time to time... my .02 currency: People 'default'. SuSE's default is KDE. KDEs default is KMail. Back in 7.1 KMail behaved like this: Hit R = Reply to sender Hit A = Reply to all Hit L = Reply to list *only* (!!!) This was later changed by KDE. Probably for some reason. But I'll bet that *that* change is responsible for a lot. Effectivly 'A' and 'L' are the same in KMail now... I suggest that, instead of bugging Chris with requests to change the setup of suse-linux-e, start bugging KDE to *return that function* to KMail, and then just learn to press L... This is a dead horse. Stop flogging it! Jon -- .signature ;)
* Bernd Felsche (bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au) [020508 18:55]:
Bounces, etc do occur on other lists, but that's not even strongly correlated with the presence of a Reply-To: header. Rather; it's to do more with the quality of list manager (software).
Sure, it helps that we use ezmlm instead of majordomo but probably most people who have ever posted to this list have received vacation messages or other autoreplies from someone; if we set a reply-to all of those not marked with a 'Precedence: bulk' header (which is a lot) would make it to the list. ezmlm isn't magic...it has no way other than headers like that to determine that a message is garage instead of a real posting.
We do not, nor will we ever as long as I'm in charge of the lists, insert reply-tos(3). You mean like you not setting the reply-to to suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com?? :-)
No, I set reply-to's all the time. Other people insert a 'reply-to: suse-linux-e@suse.com'. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. The point is, the option to do that is up to you and not us. Who am I to insist that some reply-to is the correct thing? If you want one, set it.
You understand of course that without munging; that replies will by default go only the originator - which IMO does the list no good as queries appear to go unanswered, answers aren't archived, and replies to "all" will result in the duplicates being received by the original poster.
Of course...it's not to much to expect people to look at the headers before sending a mail, is it? As for the duplicates, those are from people using mail clients that don't have a list reply function and people who don't set a proper Mail-Followup-To header. People who bother to learn how to use their mail clients and/or use snae clients don't have this problem.
You won't get people to change their MUA unless there's a compelling reason to do so. If it doesn't work properly with one mailing list, they're more likely to misuse the MUA on that list than to learn how to use another MUA for reading the list.
I'm not trying to get people to change their mail clients. If I was I'd block all mail from Outlook. If you are happy using a crappy mail client (I have no idea what you use personally, I haven't looked) great. Goodbye, -- -ckm
hwm@onetel.net.uk wrote:
Later I was told that this does not matter any longer since version 7.1
(?) or so. On the contrary Suse should be put at the end of the hd (I only have one: 30 GB). Otherwise it might be difficult to create 'boot', 'root', and 'swap'.
Now the '1024 cylinders question' comes up again in this correspondence, i.e. Suse or at least the boot partition should be placed within said limit.
Now what is correct for v. 7.3 and v. 8.0? Using Partition Magic 6 I have left 6 GB of unallocated space at the end of the hd.
I have not yet decided whether to use dual booting (only Lilo, Power Quest-BM + Lilo [latter in suse boot partition] or floppy for Suse and no BM in boot sector at all).
Hi.. I have SuSE Linux installed on the last 6g on a 40g drive no problem It was 7.3 but now upgraded to 8..During the install you will find the setup procedure will advise you to make a boot floppy if it sees windows on the drive -- Regards Ted Wager SuSE Linux user
participants (7)
-
Ben Rosenberg -
Bernd Felsche -
Christopher Mahmood -
hwm＠onetel.net.uk -
Jon Clausen -
Philipp Thomas -
Ted