alt.os.linux - Default boot with LiLo

Author

Default boot with LiLo

Solitary Soul

2002-10-27, 11:25 pm

Hi gang!

I have RH Linux on my machine with Windows ME.
I want the default boot to be for Windows.
I went into /etc/lilo.conf and changed the default -

default=DOS

- but it did not take effect.

My default boot with LiLo is still Linux.

What is the magic incantation to change the default boot?

Do I need a dead chicken or something?

Thanks,

Solitary Soul
=======================

Weird Al

2002-10-27, 11:25 pm

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:45:36 GMT, Solitary Soul
<solitarysoulNOSPAM@ev1.net> wrote:
> Hi gang!
>
> I have RH Linux on my machine with Windows ME.
> I want the default boot to be for Windows.
> I went into /etc/lilo.conf and changed the default -
>
> default=DOS
>
> - but it did not take effect.
>
> My default boot with LiLo is still Linux.
>
> What is the magic incantation to change the default boot?
>
> Do I need a dead chicken or something?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Solitary Soul
>=======================

Dear Solitary Chicken: after editing /etc/lilo.conf you
then need to enter the command, /sbin/lilo
That will update your MBR.

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-28, 5:24 am

Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOSPAM@ev1.net> wrote:
> Hi gang!

> I have RH Linux on my machine with Windows ME.
> I want the default boot to be for Windows.
> I went into /etc/lilo.conf and changed the default -

> default=DOS

> - but it did not take effect.

Why would it? Did you run lilo afterwards? How else would the
information be transferred to the boot record?

Did you expect some sort of magic transfer after you closed the editor?

Peter

Solitary Soul

2002-10-28, 9:24 am

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:39:40 +0100, "Peter T. Breuer"
<ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOSPAM@ev1.net> wrote:
>> Hi gang!
>
>> I have RH Linux on my machine with Windows ME.
>> I want the default boot to be for Windows.
>> I went into /etc/lilo.conf and changed the default -
>
>> default=DOS
>
>> - but it did not take effect.
>
>Why would it? Did you run lilo afterwards? How else would the
>information be transferred to the boot record?
>
>Did you expect some sort of magic transfer after you closed the editor?
>
>Peter

First of all, I'm a newbie to Linux, and I really don't know how it
works at this point (I plan to get Sheer's book in the near future).

For some reason, I thought that lilo would read the config file
automatically when it came up (kind of like DOS reads the CONFIG.SYS
and AUTOEXEC.BAT files when it boots).

So... yeah... I guess I did expect some sort of "magic transfer".

Now that I know the "magic incantation", everything is fine.

Thanks gang!

Solitary Soul
=======================

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-28, 10:25 am

Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOSPAM@ev1.net> wrote:
> For some reason, I thought that lilo would read the config file
> automatically when it came up (kind of like DOS reads the CONFIG.SYS

Oh, but WHAT would come up? lilo boots operating systems! You have to
boot an operating system (or somthing bigger than 512 bytes, anyway)
to read the file. So altering the file makes no odds - the o/s is
already booted by the time it can be read.

> and AUTOEXEC.BAT files when it boots).

But you just booted dos, using dos's bootloader. Now you are running
dos and you can read the config.sys, which will allow you to load
drivers and execute codes, but not boot the o/s!

> So... yeah... I guess I did expect some sort of "magic transfer".

But why? Dos does not do what you think, and you /know/ that. It
certainly does not read config.sys /before/ it boots, which is what
you thought it does. You know that it reads it after booting, and
by that time it's too late to boot the o/s of your choice!

What you can do is place in config.sys a second reboot command,
to load a new o/s. You will see dos boot, then a reboot ...

> Now that I know the "magic incantation", everything is fine.

There is no magic incantation, and you knew it all along.

Peter

Sybren Stuvel

2002-10-28, 10:25 am

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> Oh, but WHAT would come up? lilo boots operating systems! You have to
> boot an operating system (or somthing bigger than 512 bytes, anyway)
> to read the file. So altering the file makes no odds - the o/s is
> already booted by the time it can be read.

Stop punishing the newbie, since he has a point: GRUB _can_ load its
configuration from ext2/3, fat and/or reiserfs at boot time - *before* any
OS is loaded. Do a 'man grub' or search google, since you're obviously a
newbie on this subject.

> But you just booted dos, using dos's bootloader. Now you are running
> dos and you can read the config.sys, which will allow you to load
> drivers and execute codes, but not boot the o/s!

It just loaded the DOS bootloader, and the _files_ MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS,
which contain the operating system itself.

Next time, make sure you are correct before saying someone else is wrong.

Sybren
--
To get the best help, ask questions the smart way:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/sma...ions.html#intro

Don't crosspost. Post one post to a single group. If that group can't answer
your question, move on to the next group.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-28, 11:25 am

Sybren Stuvel <sybrenUSE@yourthirdtower.imagination.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:

>> Oh, but WHAT would come up? lilo boots operating systems! You have to
>> boot an operating system (or somthing bigger than 512 bytes, anyway)
>> to read the file. So altering the file makes no odds - the o/s is
>> already booted by the time it can be read.

> Stop punishing the newbie, since he has a point: GRUB _can_ load its

But grub IS an operating system. It can read umpteen file systems, and
execute commands from a special command language on them. And he knows
nothing about grub - what he knows about is DOS, and it oes not work
like he says it works, so yes, I am punishing him, because I object to
people saying to me "why doesn't this work like my <e.g. washing
machine>", when his <washing machine> does not work like that either!

> configuration from ext2/3, fat and/or reiserfs at boot time - *before* any
> OS is loaded. Do a 'man grub' or search google, since you're obviously a

No, after. What happens is that grub is a two stage boot loader. The
second stage is a mini-os (real mode). That mini-os reads
configurations and then loads the selected image, displacing itself.
You can do the same using dos (another real-mode os)as a boot loader,
without all the cafuffle of installing grub. Just get dos to run
"loadlin bzImage root=/dev/hda5 ro" from its autoexec.bat!

Other two-stage boot loaders also possess the ability to read files
on at least a crude file system. Grub is only inetersting in that it is
such a HUGE bootloader that it can read all kinds of file systems. You
can say "over engineered". You can say that they can't keep it up.

There was not even any need to do the trick using dos or grub. One can
use linux itself as a two stage bootloader, even though it's not
designed to be, and you /will/ see the double boot as it boots,
reads your config, then reboots to load the configured image in real
mode again. No, I'm not going to say how - it's too fragile a method.

>> But you just booted dos, using dos's bootloader. Now you are running
>> dos and you can read the config.sys, which will allow you to load
>> drivers and execute codes, but not boot the o/s!

> It just loaded the DOS bootloader, and the _files_ MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS,
> which contain the operating system itself.

They were at a fixed spot on the partition if it did that. I.e. it didn't
read the file system, just offset from the partiton start. And those files
are not config.sys and autoexec.bat!

> Next time, make sure you are correct before saying someone else is wrong.

I am correct. The 512 bytes of the boot loader cannot read your files
on disk. The operating system they boot can, whether you call it an o/s or
a two-stage boot loader. Dos does not read config.sys before booting.

Peter

Tom B

2002-10-28, 6:24 pm

> I am punishing him, because

you are a snobby dick? If you aren't willing to help a newbie learn, your
knowledge is meaningless. If you think trash-talking is helpful, then you
are stupider than the person you are trashing by a long shot. Looks like
you think you have a lot of knowledge. Why don't you share it amicably,
instead of acting like an arse? If I was looking for Linux help and your
response was what I found, I'd be back on Windows full-time in a heartbeat.
If you can't help... *don't bother* responding.

Tom B
--
Certified Linux Noob, Usenet vet and
general all-around nice guy.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 10/24/2002

William D. Tallman

2002-10-28, 11:24 pm

Tom B wrote:

>> I am punishing him, because
>
> you are a snobby dick? If you aren't willing to help a newbie learn, your
> knowledge is meaningless. If you think trash-talking is helpful, then you
> are stupider than the person you are trashing by a long shot. Looks like
> you think you have a lot of knowledge. Why don't you share it amicably,
> instead of acting like an arse? If I was looking for Linux help and your
> response was what I found, I'd be back on Windows full-time in a
> heartbeat.
> If you can't help... *don't bother* responding.
>
> Tom B
> --
> Certified Linux Noob, Usenet vet and
> general all-around nice guy.

Well, sir, you are nowhere near the Usenet vet you claim to be if you don't
understand what was taking place in this thread. Being a general
all-around nice guy is irrelevant in this case, although I would be the
last one to decry that sort of virtue

As you are a CLN, you have cause to fail to understand some of the issues
here. I suspect, however, that you do understand them, but not
well enough to comprehend the dynamics of this thread. Let me speak to
this without prejudice, then.

Linux, as a home computer operating system, is a profound departure from
the more popular products from a little town in Washington state. When I
say profound, I mean that there are much deeper issues involved, and they
have greater consequence than one might first imagine. Which is why part
of the process of learning about Linux is somewhat of a paradigm shift for
many (most?) newcomers from that "other" OS. In essence, how that shift is
made can make a great deal of difference for the Linux newbie in terms of
subsequent Linux experience, but also addresses how things that are really
new are handled in general. Yeah, it's really that important!!!

So, as you no doubt have had cause to discover, Linux requires one to
understand what one is doing with/to the OS, first of all because one *can*
do something with/to the OS, and secondly because one can do anything one
likes to the OS with little warning of the consequences. This is because
it is assumed that one who would do so knows what they're up to. This
leads us to the question of how one gets to know such things. Certainly,
no experience with Windows is going to address this, because Windows does
not require that you know anything about the computer itself; it presents
the machine as an appliance with self-explanatory controls one need know
nothing of to use.

Therefore, part of the process of learning to use Linux involves applying
the process of learning itself, and this is something entirely new to many
computer users. You will find it obvious, I think, that if that is so,
there is a significant amount of added stuff inherent in tutoring the odd
Linux newbie. Essentially, absent an adequate curriculum in the use of the
OS, one has to apply one's ability to *think*, as well as one's ability to
learn (acquire data?). It boots one nothing to have information that one
cannot apply because one does not see how to do so. In the main, however,
seeing how to do so can be acquired by thinking through what is going on,
although often not without some amount of effort.

How that applies to our brave new world future in general is beyond the
scope of this post, but be aware that it does most profoundly!!

Anyway, if a Linux noob shows up in a post here, displaying an apparent
inability (reluctance, whatever...) to think about what they're addressing,
one might be pleased to find the likes of Peter T. Breuer willing to go the
extra mile and ask the questions that (he hopes) will start the thinking
process. Or maybe someone like me who's willing to break their fingers
typing an explanation of all this... LOL!!!!!!!

You will often read posts claiming that the poster has learned to honor and
appreciate the flames of "RTFM!!!!!" that were cast their way, because they
"got it" that they had to think about what was going on and try to figure
out on their own what was to be done. One thing that is common in those
posts is the assertion that "STFW" is their friend, their boon companion
first order methodology. These are the guys that eventually can choose to
join the mentoring corps in these NGs. Or not. But at least they come to
understand that geeks aren't always born; some are made. And we know that
geeks are the new priesthood of our times, don't we..... <grin>

Therefore, thanks be to PTB and his ilk for making the difference here,
because the curve is steeper than most people are willing to face, and
without the patient goading of the resident "bad guys", I suspect more than
just a few would turn away and go back to.... you get the point, I assume.

The harsh and uncompromising weapons-master is the kindest of all, for his
students are the least likely to fall in battle, where harshness is a given
and the enemy's thrust is the most uncompromising of all.

Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-29, 12:24 am

Tom B <mamengineer@stopspam.qwest.net> wrote:
>> I am punishing him, because

> you are a snobby dick? If you aren't willing to help a newbie learn, your

Who? What?

> knowledge is meaningless.

Knowledge? Knowledge? What knowledge? Why would knowledge be considered
anything but a handicap in any sphere? It's the logic you bring to bear
on a situation that is important, and anything as calcified as knowledge
would be a real weight to bear!

> If you think trash-talking is helpful, then you

If you do, then go elsewhere. I feel insulted by your unwarranted
attack. On me? On who?

> are stupider than the person you are trashing by a long shot. Looks like
> you think you have a lot of knowledge. Why don't you share it amicably,

No, I think nothing about thinking.

Why should I share WHAT amicably? The knowledge you say I think I have?
Don't be silly! How about sharing the sheep you say I think I have? It
makes as much sense!

> instead of acting like an arse? If I was looking for Linux help and your

Keep your insults to yourself.

> response was what I found, I'd be back on Windows full-time in a heartbeat.

Good! Go "back"!

> If you can't help... *don't bother* responding.

Why not? Next time you see someone picking a pocket, don't "help"
either! After all you have nothing to offer the thief except insults!
That kind of treatment will just piss off the theif and send him back
to grand larceny in an instant!

> general all-around nice guy.

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Hilarious.

Learn to be humble. In particular if you are so arrogant as to give
advice to others :-).

Peter

Tom B

2002-10-29, 7:24 am

I am a CLN. No doubt. But I cut my teeth on Sparcs in the eighties running
Solaris. So, I am not new to the whole unix ideal. Simply put, when I have
a question, I would like an answer, not a run-around telling me how little I
know. My reason for using Linux is not so simple as a desire to see Redmond
burn in flames and Billy-boy lose his XXX. If I came in this newsgroup and
asked "what's a unit hydrograph?" or "Can someone explain Manning's number
to me?" then I would expect to get flamed. If I come in asking a question
related to the topic of the newsgroup, and I am honest in my attempt to
acquire knowledge, then all I want to see is the answer to my question. If
anyone has a problem with my point of view, they are welcome to killfile me.
Besides, it's a documented fact that today's experts were once the noobies
asking the stupid questions.

Tom B

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 10/24/2002

Jon Portnoy

2002-10-29, 10:25 am

In article <urs4gs6dbgm5ad@corp.supernews.com>, William D. Tallman wrote:
> Tom B wrote:
>
>>> I am punishing him, because
>>
>> you are a snobby dick? If you aren't willing to help a newbie learn, your
>> knowledge is meaningless. If you think trash-talking is helpful, then you
>> are stupider than the person you are trashing by a long shot. Looks like
>> you think you have a lot of knowledge. Why don't you share it amicably,
>> instead of acting like an arse? If I was looking for Linux help and your
>> response was what I found, I'd be back on Windows full-time in a
>> heartbeat.
>> If you can't help... *don't bother* responding.
>>
>> Tom B
>> --
>> Certified Linux Noob, Usenet vet and
>> general all-around nice guy.
>
> Well, sir, you are nowhere near the Usenet vet you claim to be if you don't
> understand what was taking place in this thread. Being a general
> all-around nice guy is irrelevant in this case, although I would be the
> last one to decry that sort of virtue
>
> As you are a CLN, you have cause to fail to understand some of the issues
> here. I suspect, however, that you do understand them, but not
> well enough to comprehend the dynamics of this thread. Let me speak to
> this without prejudice, then.
[snip long rambling nonsensical explanation as to why it's okay to be mean
to newbies]

Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
skills. When you're learning something new that's not truly a big deal
(such as a new operating system), if someone is just bitched out for not
knowing something, they're more likely to get frustrated and go back to an
environment they're used to.

(As a side comment, is it _really_ necessary to use that many exclamation
points?)

--
Jon Portnoy

Steven Jones

2002-10-29, 3:24 pm

Sorry to top post but there's so much waffly here...

I'd just like to say for the record that Boot loaders can read config files
from the disk on which they may reside eg NT OSLoader on NT/2k/XP that has a
mini NTFS filesystem driver that allows it to read boot.ini on the Active
partition and list operating systems that are available to boot

Dont be mean to Newbies check out my site instead www.sabien.uklinux.net

--
Steven Jones
Developer - Project SABIEN

SABIEN Secure Linux Administration
www.sabien.uklinux.net

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:1h8lpa.ij4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
> Tom B <mamengineer@stopspam.qwest.net> wrote:
> >> I am punishing him, because
>
> > you are a snobby dick? If you aren't willing to help a newbie learn,
your
>
> Who? What?
>
> > knowledge is meaningless.
>
> Knowledge? Knowledge? What knowledge? Why would knowledge be considered
> anything but a handicap in any sphere? It's the logic you bring to bear
> on a situation that is important, and anything as calcified as knowledge
> would be a real weight to bear!
>
> > If you think trash-talking is helpful, then you
>
> If you do, then go elsewhere. I feel insulted by your unwarranted
> attack. On me? On who?
>
> > are stupider than the person you are trashing by a long shot. Looks
like
> > you think you have a lot of knowledge. Why don't you share it amicably,
>
> No, I think nothing about thinking.
>
> Why should I share WHAT amicably? The knowledge you say I think I have?
> Don't be silly! How about sharing the sheep you say I think I have? It
> makes as much sense!
>
> > instead of acting like an arse? If I was looking for Linux help and
your
>
> Keep your insults to yourself.
>
> > response was what I found, I'd be back on Windows full-time in a
heartbeat.
>
> Good! Go "back"!
>
> > If you can't help... *don't bother* responding.
>
> Why not? Next time you see someone picking a pocket, don't "help"
> either! After all you have nothing to offer the thief except insults!
> That kind of treatment will just piss off the theif and send him back
> to grand larceny in an instant!
>
> > general all-around nice guy.
>
>
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Learn to be humble. In particular if you are so arrogant as to give
> advice to others :-).
>
>
>
> Peter

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-29, 3:24 pm

Steven Jones <info@sabien.uklinux.net> wrote:
> Sorry to top post but there's so much waffly here...

If you were to read the "waffle" in the thread, you'd see that you are
repeating what is SAID.

> I'd just like to say for the record that Boot loaders can read config files
> from the disk on which they may reside eg NT OSLoader on NT/2k/XP that has a

No they can't. It's the second stage that's booted by the boot loader that
does the reading, not the boot loader (on the MBR) itself. That's a
real mode mini-os, and it then loads the right image into memory and
jumps to it.

You didn't have to quote any weird example. "dos" is a two stage boot
loader. Try putting "shell=loadlin c:\vmlinuz" in its autoexec.bat.
It works just like grub, except that it's a little more powerfull in
the shell departmeht, amd less powerful in the reading f/s's dept.

Linux itself can be made to act as a boot loader (with difficulty).

Peter

Paul Lutus

2002-10-29, 5:24 pm

Jon Portnoy wrote:

/ ...

>> As you are a CLN, you have cause to fail to understand some of the issues
>> here. I suspect, however, that you do understand them, but not
>> well enough to comprehend the dynamics of this thread. Let me speak to
>> this without prejudice, then.
> [snip long rambling nonsensical explanation as to why it's okay to be mean
> to newbies]
>
> Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
> situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
> skills.

You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot software
caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.

In another incident, scores of people were injured or killed across the US
because of a software error in a radiation diathermy machine.

In a world increasing dependent on computers, the few remaining neanderthals
who believe computing is "no big deal" are become increasingly rare. And, I
might add, thankfully.

Computers are being given more and more responsibility, and this
responsibility reflects onto the operators and programmers. Like this:

http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...2,13987,00.html

Title: "Sunk by Windows NT"

Quote:

"The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an
application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data
contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted
to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred -- crashing the entire network
and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system."

--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com

Jon Portnoy

2002-10-29, 6:24 pm

In article <uru38m8tqjmhf6@corp.supernews.com>, Paul Lutus wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>>> As you are a CLN, you have cause to fail to understand some of the issues
>>> here. I suspect, however, that you do understand them, but not
>>> well enough to comprehend the dynamics of this thread. Let me speak to
>>> this without prejudice, then.
>> [snip long rambling nonsensical explanation as to why it's okay to be mean
>> to newbies]
>>
>> Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
>> situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
>> skills.
>
> You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
> errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot software
> caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.
>

Was it running Linux?

Did it occur because somebody wasn't bitched out as a newbie?

> In another incident, scores of people were injured or killed across the US
> because of a software error in a radiation diathermy machine.

Was it running Linux?

Did it occur because somebody wasn't bitched out as a newbie?

>
> In a world increasing dependent on computers, the few remaining neanderthals
> who believe computing is "no big deal" are become increasingly rare. And, I
> might add, thankfully.

I didn't say they were 'no big deal.' I said that not bitching out a
new Linux user won't get anybody killed and may be beneficial.

Please quote where I said computers were 'no big deal'?

>
[snip more of the same Lutus bullshit]

--
Jon Portnoy

William D. Tallman

2002-10-29, 8:24 pm

Tom B wrote:

> I am a CLN. No doubt. But I cut my teeth on Sparcs in the eighties
> running
> Solaris. So, I am not new to the whole unix ideal. Simply put, when I
> have a question, I would like an answer, not a run-around telling me how
> little I
> know. My reason for using Linux is not so simple as a desire to see
> Redmond
> burn in flames and Billy-boy lose his XXX. If I came in this newsgroup
> and asked "what's a unit hydrograph?" or "Can someone explain Manning's
> number
> to me?" then I would expect to get flamed. If I come in asking a question
> related to the topic of the newsgroup, and I am honest in my attempt to
> acquire knowledge, then all I want to see is the answer to my question.
> If anyone has a problem with my point of view, they are welcome to
> killfile me. Besides, it's a documented fact that today's experts were
> once the noobies asking the stupid questions.

So, what's your point?

Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586

Joachim Feise

2002-10-29, 10:24 pm

Paul Lutus wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>
>>>As you are a CLN, you have cause to fail to understand some of the issues
>>>here. I suspect, however, that you do understand them, but not
>>>well enough to comprehend the dynamics of this thread. Let me speak to
>>>this without prejudice, then.
>>
>>[snip long rambling nonsensical explanation as to why it's okay to be mean
>>to newbies]
>>
>>Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
>>situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
>>skills.
>
>
> You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
> errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot software
> caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.
>
> In another incident, scores of people were injured or killed across the US
> because of a software error in a radiation diathermy machine.

You have set yourself up for flames quite nicely here ;-)
These things of course don't have anything to do with any particular
operating system. As a self-proclaimed oldtimer you should have known
that. Conclusion: you have no clue.

>
> In a world increasing dependent on computers, the few remaining neanderthals
> who believe computing is "no big deal" are become increasingly rare. And, I
> might add, thankfully.
>
> Computers are being given more and more responsibility, and this
> responsibility reflects onto the operators and programmers. Like this:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...2,13987,00.html

And all you can find to illustrate your point is a Wired article?
Again, that just shows that you are the one without any clue.
May I point you to comp.risks, and of course to the work of people like
Peter G. Neumann and Nancy Leveson?

William D. Tallman

2002-10-29, 11:25 pm

Jon Portnoy wrote:

> [snip long rambling nonsensical explanation as to why it's okay to be mean
> to newbies]

Ummm... sorry to disturb your illiteracy...

> Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
> situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
> skills. When you're learning something new that's not truly a big deal
> (such as a new operating system), if someone is just bitched out for not
> knowing something, they're more likely to get frustrated and go back to an
> environment they're used to.

My bad, I was wrong. You really don't get it, do you?

I'm not going to try to inform, enlighten, or instruct you in this matter,
for which you are no doubt thankful. If you ever get the hunch that
there's something going on that you don't see, I'm pleased to tell you that
it's not hard to find out; you just have to look around and think about
what you discover.

On the other hand, if someone wants to start a thread about why Linux
(topical in this NG, I believe) might be more important than as just
another operating system, I've got some thoughts on the matter that might
be found interesting. Think about this: Why is Microsoft deliberately
continuing to produce a completely insecure operating system, and how might
that affect Linux?

> (As a side comment, is it _really_ necessary to use that many exclamation
> points?)

Irrelevant nitpickery is a common option to a failure to provide a
substantive response. Thought you oughta know....

Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586

Paul Lutus

2002-10-30, 12:24 am

Jon Portnoy wrote:

/ ...

>> You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
>> errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot
>> software caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.
>>
>
> Was it running Linux?

What? Do you know what is being discussed? You introduced the subject. Here
is your claim:
[colo
r=darkred]
>>> Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
>>> situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
>>> skills.[/color]

You brought up the topic of "an operating system." You will clearly be
surpried to hear that Linux is in use in many places where lives are at
stake, so your argument is flawed in a dozen ways.

--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com

Paul Lutus

2002-10-30, 12:24 am

Joachim Feise wrote:

/ ...

>> You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
>> errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot
>> software caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.
>>
>> In another incident, scores of people were injured or killed across the
>> US because of a software error in a radiation diathermy machine.
>
> You have set yourself up for flames quite nicely here ;-)
> These things of course don't have anything to do with any particular
> operating system.

Who made that claim? It is quite irrelevant to the thread. All of the events
I posted had to do with SOME operating system. Therefore it is approproate
to the topic of operating systems.

> As a self-proclaimed oldtimer you should have known
> that. Conclusion: you have no clue.

Re-read the thread, then apologize for wasting our time.

>
>>
>> In a world increasing dependent on computers, the few remaining
>> neanderthals who believe computing is "no big deal" are become
>> increasingly rare. And, I might add, thankfully.
>>
>> Computers are being given more and more responsibility, and this
>> responsibility reflects onto the operators and programmers. Like this:
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...2,13987,00.html
>
> And all you can find to illustrate your point is a Wired article?

You find you cannot argue with the facts, so you argue with the source? This
is embarrassing. Go take your education over. Take science this time.

--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com

Joachim Feise

2002-10-30, 12:24 am

Paul Lutus wrote:
> Joachim Feise wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>
>>>You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
>>>errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot
>>>software caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.
>>>
>>>In another incident, scores of people were injured or killed across the
>>>US because of a software error in a radiation diathermy machine.
>>
>>You have set yourself up for flames quite nicely here ;-)
>>These things of course don't have anything to do with any particular
>>operating system.
>
>
> Who made that claim? It is quite irrelevant to the thread. All of the events
> I posted had to do with SOME operating system. Therefore it is approproate
> to the topic of operating systems.

Another show of your lack of any clue. Most embedded systems don't have an OS.

Peter T. Breuer

2002-10-30, 2:25 am

Jon Portnoy <jdpNOSPAM@oppresses.us> wrote:
> In article <uru38m8tqjmhf6@corp.supernews.com>, Paul Lutus wrote:
>> Jon Portnoy wrote:
>>> Let's face it. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a life or death
>>> situation where you need to be subjected to harshness to learn survival
>>> skills.
>>
>> You are really quite clueless. Many people have died because of computer
>> errors. In a Airbus accident, a programing error in the autopilot software
>> caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers and crew.

> Was it running Linux?

Possibly.

> Did it occur because somebody wasn't bitched out as a newbie?

Probably.

[snip more etc.]

Think about it.

Peter

Tom B

2002-10-30, 6:24 am

> Most embedded systems don't have an OS.

WHAT? Name one embedded system that has no O.S. Go ahead now... come
on...

Tom B

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 10/25/2002

Sybren Stuvel

2002-10-30, 6:24 am

Tom B wrote:

> WHAT? Name one embedded system that has no O.S. Go ahead now... come
> on...

Any embedded system! Well, in the production stage at least, before the OS
is put onto it :-)

Sybren
--
To get the best help, ask questions the smart way:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/sma...ions.html#intro

Don't crosspost. Post one post to a single group. If that group can't answer
your question, move on to the next group.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

John Hasler

2002-10-30, 12:25 pm

Tom B writes:
> Name one embedded system that has no O.S.

Most embedded systems run on eight-bit micros with the application handling
I/O directly with a simple polling loop. An OS would be silly on a PIC
chip.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Joachim Feise

2002-10-30, 4:24 pm

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, John Hasler wrote:
> Tom B writes:
> > Name one embedded system that has no O.S.
>
> Most embedded systems run on eight-bit micros with the application handling
> I/O directly with a simple polling loop. An OS would be silly on a PIC
> chip.

Exactly. And anybody who has written software for embedded systems knows that.
In addition, most embedded systems are severely limited in the amount of
memory available. There simply wouldn't be the space to run an OS.

-Joe

Sponsored Links