Annoyances.org
Home » Windows 98 Discussion Forum » Message 1255927440 Search | Help | Home
  
Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction?
Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted)


Kiwi wrote:
|My preferred install is from a directory on my hard drive;
|
Linux guys wonder why anyone would waste hard drive space
copying an install CD to his HDD.
It's not like you need it there to reinstall Linux semi-annually.
It's not like you need it there for improved install speed because, again,
you don't need to reinstall Linux constantly;
Linux doesn't have the (stupid) Windoze Registry to get crapped up.

The downside of Linux distros is that EVERYTHING on the CD gets installed.[1]
It is wise, therefore, to select your distro carefully.
The EVERTHING bit is a minor point for most folks, however,
as the package manager makes it simple to get more apps and/or to update apps
(via the Internet), or to remove apps you don't want[2].


|but it doesn't seem that any of your various *nixes want to do it that way.
|They all (right?)
|
See [1].

|mostly want to run from CDs you have to create using the downloads ? 
|
I suggested the DeLi Linux distro because of its support for very old hardware
(by virtue of its very old Linux kernel).
It's a shame that that distro is one of the few
that don't allow you to boot the CD to a desktop so you can do a test drive.

There is a very old version of Knoppix (3.1) that is almost as old
and its CD _is_ bootable to a desktop.

...but, yes, the standard way of installing Linux
is to start the installer from the CD, tell it what you want it to do,
and walk away (you don't have to babysit a Linux install).


If your iron is so ancient that its BIOS won't allow it to boot to a CD,
there's SmartBootManager:
cache 
of  https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SmartBootManager
Do I really need to state that it's Free Software?
...and it's just as useful for folks who only run M$'s junk.
(Parted==Gnome Partition Editor, a Free Software equivalent of Partition Magic.)


[1] There are some miniscule distros that assume you're not a Linux n00b
and that you want to make a highly customized box.
They start with a bare-minimum install via the CD
and you get the rest of what you want online.
U-Lite* (formerly called UbuntuLite) and Tiny Core Linux* are exemplars.

There is also an Ubuntu Alternate Install CD*
that allows you to pick and choose which apps you want to install.
It is quite useful for low-horsepower boxes.
The Alternate Install CD is bootable but _does not_ boot to a graphical desktop.

* NOTE:  These use recent kernels and may not work on your very old hardware.

[2] ...and, unlike Windoze, when Linux uninstalls something,
it uninstalls ALL of it--it doesn't leave that app's turds all over the place.




Written in response to:
re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (Kiwi: Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm)

Responses to this message:
*re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (Kiwi: Monday, October 19, 2009 at 4:10 am)

All messages in this thread [show all]
-Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 4:10 am)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Arminius: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 7:43 am)
*re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 8:28 pm)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 11:05 am)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 8:34 pm)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 9:16 pm)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 10:32 pm)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Wed, Oct 7, 2009, 11:24 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Thu, Oct 8, 2009, 10:21 am)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Arminius: Thu, Oct 8, 2009, 3:41 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Thu, Oct 8, 2009, 6:13 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Arminius: Thu, Oct 8, 2009, 9:18 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 12:04 am)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Arminius: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 2:34 am)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 1:47 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 2:15 pm)
*re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Arminius: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 9:05 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 2:07 pm)
*re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 3:24 pm)
*re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 6:07 pm)
*re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 1:51 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 1:25 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 6:14 pm)
-re: Maybe a fresh new thread, instead? (Kiwi: Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 8:33 pm)
*re: Maybe a fresh new thread, instead? (gewg_: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 11:48 am)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Arminius: Fri, Oct 9, 2009, 8:49 pm)
*re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (Kiwi: Sat, Oct 10, 2009, 7:21 am)
*re: Another "Lightweight", it's K-Meleon. (Kiwi: Sun, Oct 11, 2009, 2:50 pm)
-re: As long as it's "Lightweight", there is this as well . . (gewg_: Sat, Oct 10, 2009, 2:16 pm)
-re: The first Lightweight something is running now (Kiwi: Sat, Oct 10, 2009, 6:56 pm)
-re: The first Lightweight something is running now (gewg_: Sat, Oct 10, 2009, 9:25 pm)
-re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (Kiwi: Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 6:56 pm)
-re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (gewg_: Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 9:44 pm)
-re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (Kiwi: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 4:10 am)
-re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (gewg_: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 11:55 am)
-re: So far, I haven't seen the Xubuntu GUI illustrated (Kiwi: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 1:10 pm)
-re: So far, I haven't seen the Xubuntu GUI illustrated (gewg_: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 3:38 pm)
*re: The fluxbox GUI in DSL doesn't look too bad at all (Kiwi: Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 4:06 pm)
-Broadband that almost isn't (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 5:35 pm)
*re: Broadband that almost isn't (gewg_: Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 7:24 pm)
-re: So far, I haven't seen the Xubuntu GUI illustrated (gewg_: Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 11:11 am)
-Bee Linux (Kiwi: Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 1:54 am)
*re: Bee Linux (gewg_: Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 8:03 am)
-re: Do all of these things still require the intermediate CD construction? (gewg_: Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 11:25 pm)
*Boot your OS (ISO) without even burning to optical media (gewg_: Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 6:35 pm)
*re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Mon, Feb 7, 2011, 12:37 pm)
-re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (J.R.: Mon, Nov 2, 2009, 8:16 pm)
*re: Wanted: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Mon, Nov 2, 2009, 8:52 pm)
-Found: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 12:59 am)
-re: Found: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (gewg_: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 12:34 pm)
*re: Found: Lightweight Browser for old, slow PC (Kiwi: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 12:58 pm)
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum


All content at Annoyances.org is Copyright ©1995-2012 Creative Elementtm All rights reserved.
Please do not plagiarize; redistributing these pages without permission is strictly prohibited.