SEUL: hardware detection

[Mike Scott <mscott@cftnet.com>]

William T. Wilson wrote:

>If the user knows the brand and model of card, then that will be a no
>brainer.  If the user does not, then we can try superprobe.  As a last
>resort, we can hope they have Win95 installed and try to raid the Win95
>configuration for the information.  :)  Does anyone know enough about the
>Win95 registry to try and pick it apart in such a way?  :)
>
It should not be necessary to directly read the proprietary database format
of the W95 registry because (1) it also maintains the system.ini text file
for backward compatibility, just look at the section

[boot.description]
...
display.drv= ATI Graphics Pro Turbo PCI....
...

(2) use regedit, and its "File/Export Registry" command to write the
registry to a text file for examination; search for the name of your card.
Note that method (1) might be better because I noticed that the registry
not only had an entry for the name of my current video card, but also the
previous one that I replaced.  It might be easy to mistakenly pick the
wrong one.

Note that M$ does not _always_ properly detect the video card; they just
default to standard VGA.  The user that has no knowledge of who made his
video card, can he install WinBlows in better than VGA resolution?
Maybe if his card is a really common one... There are many users who use
WinBlows who would be quite unable to install it.  Is it unreasonable
that an OS should be _installed_ by a qualified person?

I believe that we can create a revolution in the market by making a Linux
system which can be _used_ by a CI; making one which can be properly
_installed_ by any CI might be better saved for the second version...

Concerning the use of a DOS boot floppy to defrag and resize a W95
partition; it would not work under FAT32 file system.  I believe the
worst possible damage to the reputation of Linux would come by
distributing an install system which damaged existing partitions in
_any_ way after telling the user that they would be preserved.
For these users, as well as anyone they talk to, we would probably
not get a second chance.

Would it not be more prudent to start by suggesting the user get a
program such as "Partition Magic" which understands FAT32 and HPFS,
to resize his existing partition?  If it was damaged by that program,
Linux should not be blamed.  For the CI, let his techie do it.