Re: SEUL: Re: What's the diff to SEUL ? (fwd)

[Tim Thomson <tim.thomson@softhome.net>]

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, George Bonser wrote:

> > The trouble with this is that it makes our space really tight.  A DOS
> > "preparation disk" that would manage all the Win95 fixing, then prompting
> > the user for the real install disk, which would be linux based.  Perhaps.
> > The DOS disk would not be necessary for those not wishing to preserve a
> > Win95 install.
> 
> I agree, the additional install disk would not be used for "clean"
> installations of new systems but only when Win95 or DOS are to be saved.
> And it only works in uncompressed filesystems anyway.

Why not have a Win95 executable to download, that will set things up to
start with.
It could defrag and fips the drive, create a Primary and Swap partition,
then copy an image to the swap area. This image is then run by shutting
down to DOS and running loadlin to execute the Linux partition.

This initial install would then set up the real Linux partition, and
reboot to the new partition. Then turn the initial Linux boot partition
(the Swap part.) into a real swap partition, and initialize it.

You have your basic Linux install from which to start setting up, with no
user interruption (except for setting the size of Linux and Swap
partitions).

You can nab anything you want from the Win95 registry, like network
settings, monitor settings, etc.

If the drive is compressed, then get Win95 to reduce the size of it, so
you have enough space on the host drive, then do the same as above.
You can copy any settings you want to the host drive for Linux to access
it.

Win95 people are used to big downloads, so you could put in quite a big
initial system if you want.

What's wrong with this, a no floppy, minimum user intervention setup
procedure?

-Tim.

---
Debian/GNU Linux... the maintainable operating system. http://www.debian.org