Linux Remains Incredible

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Kenneth Down » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:57



I remember hearing that Linux was powerful, but nobody every really said it
was easy.  The thing is, Linux is actually quite easy, if you are willing
to learn.

The reason it is easy is that the learning you have to do is all about very
tiny and easy to understand pieces.  It can be intimidating to learn them
if you try all at once, but a lot of fun if you take them one at a time.

The real fun is when one day you realize you are reinstalling a complete
operating system, but all of the machines are up, even the machine that is
getting the new OS, and that you did not have to read a HOW-TO, you made up
the procedure yourself.  Here goes:

-> First, a little tool called "screen" that somebody here first
   mentioned to me.  Simply put, you type "screen" at a prompt and you
   get .... another prompt!  But this prompt is "inside" of the screen
   program.  Hit CTRL-A D and you have detached from this session.
   Type in screen -R and you reattach.  Hmmmm, so if you did something
   time-consuming, like a compile, inside of screen, you could detach
   and walk away while it hums a long in the background.  Nice.

-> Plain old ssh, the secure remote access program.  If you ssh into a
   machine, you have a text console.  Now if you ssh and then use
   screen, then detach, you can ssh the next time from a different machine,
   re-attach to your screen session, and you have effective control of
   the process from anywhere.

-> su.  A simple tool that allows you to "go root".  You do your normal
   tasks in your regular account, and when necessary you "go root" to
   perform tasks that require elevated priveleges.  With ssh and su, you
   can prohibit root logins to a box, but still login and administer.
   Combine su, screen, and ssh, and you have complete and secure control
   over a box from anywhere in the world.

-> chroot.  There is no analog to this in the windows world that I know
   of (That's an invitation, Erik).  Basically, you can go to a prompt
   and then tell it that /some/sub/directory is actually the top-level
   root directory.  If you have populated /some/sub/directory with folders
   like /bin, /sbin, /etc, and so forth, you have a simulated virtual
   drive.

So I ssh'd into my internet machine, which is running SuSE, went to screen,
mounted a partition, chroot'd into it, unpacked the gentoo stage 1 tarball,
and began the bootstrap, then disconnected.  In a few hours I'll check up
on it, from wherever I happen to be at the moment.

When it is all done, I'll emerge the various internet services I make use
of, and then begin moving data files.

My goal this time is affect a complete operating system switch, including
upgrades to all relevant utilities (mail, webmail, apache, mod_ssl, etc.)
with less than 30 minutes of downtime.

If this were a professional setting I would of course have a second box to
slip in, but I figure this is pretty good for a hobby situation.

--
Ken

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:10:09



> I remember hearing that Linux was powerful, but nobody every really
> said it was easy.  The thing is, Linux is actually quite easy, if you
> are willing to learn.

I remember hearing that rock climbing is exciting, but nobody ever really
said it was easy.  The thing is, rock climbing is actually quite easy, if
you are willing to work like hell.

You seem to forget that "learning" is work to most people.  Work is not
"easy".

Quote:> The reason it is easy is that the learning you have to do is all
> about very tiny and easy to understand pieces.  It can be
> intimidating to learn them if you try all at once, but a lot of fun
> if you take them one at a time.

Since when is something like your xf86config file a "tiny and easy to
understand piece"?

Since when is your httpd.conf file a "tiny and easy to understand piece"?

You can apply your argument to anything.  Nuclear science is easy, because
you only have to learn one "tiny and easy to understand piece" at a time.

Quote:> -> chroot.  There is no analog to this in the windows world that I
>    know of (That's an invitation, Erik).  Basically, you can go to a
>    prompt and then tell it that /some/sub/directory is actually the
>    top-level root directory.  If you have populated
>    /some/sub/directory with folders like /bin, /sbin, /etc, and so
>    forth, you have a simulated virtual drive.

Well, there are various tools to create virtual drive mappings to
directories, which would work the same, since of course Windows doesn't have
a "root" directory like Linux.  (see subst, for instance).

Quote:> So I ssh'd into my internet machine, which is running SuSE, went to
> screen, mounted a partition, chroot'd into it, unpacked the gentoo
> stage 1 tarball, and began the bootstrap, then disconnected.  In a
> few hours I'll check up on it, from wherever I happen to be at the
> moment.

Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The bootstrap is
used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup program?  While
chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create a virtual machine.  You
could of course use something like user-mode linux, but you didn't say you
used that.

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Anthony Fremon » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:47:58



> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The bootstrap is
> used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup program?  While
> chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create a virtual machine.
> You could of course use something like user-mode linux, but you didn't say
> you used that.

It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about, so I
will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be used quite
correctly when referring to situations other than booting a computer.  Ken
was referring to the process of building a staticly-linked and somewhat
crippled C compiler and set of librarys, so that he may then build a set
that is dynamically-linked and full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap
being used to describe the process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda
thing.  I'm guessing that you have never set up a cross compiler.

He only needs a chrooted environment and not a complete virtual machine to
do this.  Although for all practical purposes it may as well be a
considered a virtual machine as it is fairly well isolated from the rest of
the processes.  But then Linux does tend to wall-off apps from each other
better than windows.  At any rate, it's a moot point and irrelevant to
Ken's post as nobody was talking about virtual machines.  He doesn't need
to boot a different kernel to set up his new Gentoo installation.  He only
needs to do what he did do, and that's to mount his new skeleton file
system and chroot.

--
michael brown

  3:35pm  up 74 days,  2:55,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Kenneth Down » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:46:08


<snip>

Erik, if you want to play, you have come up with something better than that
rambling bit of half-truth and mistake-ridden nit picking.

Give me  real argument and I'll give you one.
--
Ken

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:05:00




> <snip>

> Erik, if you want to play, you have come up with something better
> than that rambling bit of half-truth and mistake-ridden nit picking.

> Give me  real argument and I'll give you one.

Now, now Ken.  Deleting the argument, and then calling it names is a bit too
close to dishonesty.  If you don't think the argument is valid, address that
argument, don't delete it and say (in effect) "You suck".

How would you like it if I deleted your argument and simply said "Your
argument isn't real, come back when you have a good one"?

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:11:11




>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
>> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup
>> program?  While chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create
>> a virtual machine. You could of course use something like user-mode
>> linux, but you didn't say you used that.

> It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about,
> so I will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be
> used quite correctly when referring to situations other than booting
> a computer.  Ken was referring to the process of building a
> staticly-linked and somewhat crippled C compiler and set of librarys,
> so that he may then build a set that is dynamically-linked and
> full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap being used to describe the
> process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda thing.  I'm guessing that
> you have never set up a cross compiler.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214479,00.html

"In computers, to bootstrap (or "to boot") is to load a program into a
computer using a much smaller initial program to load in the desired program
(which is usually an operating system)."

I don't believe that is what ken was referring to in his original message.
He said "began the bootstrap", using it as a noun, not a verb as in
"bootstrapping the compiler" or something similar.

Quote:> He only needs a chrooted environment and not a complete virtual
> machine to do this.  Although for all practical purposes it may as
> well be a considered a virtual machine as it is fairly well isolated
> from the rest of the processes.  But then Linux does tend to wall-off
> apps from each other better than windows.  At any rate, it's a moot
> point and irrelevant to Ken's post as nobody was talking about
> virtual machines.  He doesn't need to boot a different kernel to set
> up his new Gentoo installation.  He only needs to do what he did do,
> and that's to mount his new skeleton file system and chroot.

In any event, there is little need do cross-compiling, since he's targeting
the same OS on the same hardware.
 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:20:39


[snips]


> I remember hearing that rock climbing is exciting, but nobody ever really
> said it was easy.  The thing is, rock climbing is actually quite easy, if
> you are willing to work like hell.

> You seem to forget that "learning" is work to most people.  Work is not
> "easy".

True enough.

Quote:> Since when is something like your xf86config file a "tiny and easy to
> understand piece"?

> Since when is your httpd.conf file a "tiny and easy to understand

piece"?

There's "easy" and there's "easy".  Setting up a web server is not
something to be undertaken lightly, given the possible security issues and
suchlike.  On the other hand, I've found setting up multiple domains with
Apache somewhat easier than doing so with IIS, if only because I can
either cut-paste-and-fiddle, or, using the mass dynamic sites approach, I
can skip setting them up entirely; just drop in the appropriate new
directories, point the name server at it and voila.

Quote:>> -> chroot.  There is no analog to this in the windows world that I
>>    know of (That's an invitation, Erik).  Basically, you can go to a
>>    prompt and then tell it that /some/sub/directory is actually the
>>    top-level root directory.  If you have populated
>>    /some/sub/directory with folders like /bin, /sbin, /etc, and so
>>    forth, you have a simulated virtual drive.

> Well, there are various tools to create virtual drive mappings to
> directories, which would work the same, since of course Windows doesn't have
> a "root" directory like Linux.  (see subst, for instance).

Slight differences.  For one, it's not really root.  Try installing things
there and when they're all set up and working, move them to C:\.  That is:

subst d: c:\some\dir
install someapp d:\someappdir
Woohoo!
move d:\someappdir\*.* c:\someappdir
Oops.

If subst were a proper "virtual root" setup, the app would _think_ it was
talking to C:\ instead of D:\ so moving the folder over wouldn't break
anything.

Quote:>> So I ssh'd into my internet machine, which is running SuSE, went to
>> screen, mounted a partition, chroot'd into it, unpacked the gentoo
>> stage 1 tarball, and began the bootstrap, then disconnected.  In a
>> few hours I'll check up on it, from wherever I happen to be at the
>> moment.

> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The bootstrap is
> used to boot the machine.

"Bootstrap" is a shortened form of "pulling itself up by its [own]
bootstraps".  It refers to any process in which you use some usually
minimal step of the process to enable the rest of the process to occur.

As an example, I may distribute a new C++ compiler in source form.
Problem is, compiling it requires features only available with the
runnable version of my compiler.  Solution: provide a way to compile a
small, incomplete version of the compiler that _can_ be compiled, say with
your existing C compiler - which can then be used to build the full
version of the compiler.

The compiler "pulls itself up by its bootstraps"; in this case, it
compiles itself.

Quote:> Did you mean start the setup program?

No, he meant "start the bootstrap".  The process of retrieving the code,
compiling it, linking it, etc, which is necessary to produce a
fully-functional version of the OS.  And what's he using to perform this
magic?  A minimal version of the OS, which is currently boostrapping
itself.
 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Peter Jense » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:22:59


[SNIP]

Quote:>> So I ssh'd into my internet machine, which is running SuSE, went to
>> screen, mounted a partition, chroot'd into it, unpacked the gentoo
>> stage 1 tarball, and began the bootstrap, then disconnected.  In a
>> few hours I'll check up on it, from wherever I happen to be at the
>> moment.

> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.

Bootstrap is quite a versatile word. In my world, a bootstrap is a
capacitor that deliveres charge to the high side MOSFET in a
(half-)bridge setting. It is charged when the low side is driven. The
word is also used to signify some primitive sort of initialization to a
process that then takes over control.

In other words, you are grasping at straws, since you don't have a real
argument.

[SNIP]

--
PeKaJe

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:38:13



> [snips]


>> I remember hearing that rock climbing is exciting, but nobody ever
>> really said it was easy.  The thing is, rock climbing is actually
>> quite easy, if you are willing to work like hell.

>> You seem to forget that "learning" is work to most people.  Work is
>> not "easy".

> True enough.

>> Since when is something like your xf86config file a "tiny and easy to
>> understand piece"?

>> Since when is your httpd.conf file a "tiny and easy to understand
> piece"?

> There's "easy" and there's "easy".  Setting up a web server is not
> something to be undertaken lightly, given the possible security
> issues and suchlike.  On the other hand, I've found setting up
> multiple domains with Apache somewhat easier than doing so with IIS,
> if only because I can either cut-paste-and-fiddle, or, using the mass
> dynamic sites approach, I can skip setting them up entirely; just
> drop in the appropriate new directories, point the name server at it
> and voila.

Once you understand it, sure.  Ken was talking about learning though.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:>>> -> chroot.  There is no analog to this in the windows world that I
>>>    know of (That's an invitation, Erik).  Basically, you can go to a
>>>    prompt and then tell it that /some/sub/directory is actually the
>>>    top-level root directory.  If you have populated
>>>    /some/sub/directory with folders like /bin, /sbin, /etc, and so
>>>    forth, you have a simulated virtual drive.

>> Well, there are various tools to create virtual drive mappings to
>> directories, which would work the same, since of course Windows
>> doesn't have a "root" directory like Linux.  (see subst, for
>> instance).

> Slight differences.  For one, it's not really root.  Try installing
> things there and when they're all set up and working, move them to
> C:\.  That is:

> subst d: c:\some\dir
> install someapp d:\someappdir
> Woohoo!
> move d:\someappdir\*.* c:\someappdir
> Oops.

> If subst were a proper "virtual root" setup, the app would _think_ it
> was talking to C:\ instead of D:\ so moving the folder over wouldn't
> break anything.

None of that has anything to do with the virtual mapping.  In many cases,
that will in fact work just fine, in others it won't because the program
requires registry entries that need to be updated.  This is simply a
difference in philosophy.  Unix has a "root" directory, Windows does not.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:>>> So I ssh'd into my internet machine, which is running SuSE, went to
>>> screen, mounted a partition, chroot'd into it, unpacked the gentoo
>>> stage 1 tarball, and began the bootstrap, then disconnected.  In a
>>> few hours I'll check up on it, from wherever I happen to be at the
>>> moment.

>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
>> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.

> "Bootstrap" is a shortened form of "pulling itself up by its [own]
> bootstraps".  It refers to any process in which you use some usually
> minimal step of the process to enable the rest of the process to
> occur.

> As an example, I may distribute a new C++ compiler in source form.
> Problem is, compiling it requires features only available with the
> runnable version of my compiler.  Solution: provide a way to compile a
> small, incomplete version of the compiler that _can_ be compiled, say
> with your existing C compiler - which can then be used to build the
> full version of the compiler.

> The compiler "pulls itself up by its bootstraps"; in this case, it
> compiles itself.

>> Did you mean start the setup program?

> No, he meant "start the bootstrap".  The process of retrieving the
> code, compiling it, linking it, etc, which is necessary to produce a
> fully-functional version of the OS.  And what's he using to perform
> this magic?  A minimal version of the OS, which is currently
> boostrapping itself.

None of which is necessary, since he already has a full compiler at his
disposal on the existing copy of Linux.
 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Anthony Fremon » Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:41:29





>>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
>>> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup
>>> program?  While chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create
>>> a virtual machine. You could of course use something like user-mode
>>> linux, but you didn't say you used that.

>> It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about,
>> so I will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be
>> used quite correctly when referring to situations other than booting
>> a computer.  Ken was referring to the process of building a
>> staticly-linked and somewhat crippled C compiler and set of librarys,
>> so that he may then build a set that is dynamically-linked and
>> full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap being used to describe the
>> process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda thing.  I'm guessing that
>> you have never set up a cross compiler.

> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214479,00.html

> "In computers, to bootstrap (or "to boot") is to load a program into a
> computer using a much smaller initial program to load in the desired
> program (which is usually an operating system)."

> I don't believe that is what ken was referring to in his original message.
> He said "began the bootstrap", using it as a noun, not a verb as in
> "bootstrapping the compiler" or something similar.

From the same link:

"In general usage, bootstrapping is the leveraging of a small initial effort
into something larger and more significant. There is also a common
expression, "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps," meaning to
leverage yourself to success from a small beginning."

Sounds to me exactly like what Ken was doing.  I still stand behind Ken and
his usage of the word.  I would say that you were being pedantic, but that
would imply you to also be somewhat correct, but you're not.

Whether he uses it as a verb or a noun matters not, the important thing is
that Ken *did* use the term correctly.  The term is widely used outside of
the realm of loading an OS.  It is also specifically used by the gcc
community to refer to the process of building a compiler and libs from
scratch.

Quote:>> He only needs a chrooted environment and not a complete virtual
>> machine to do this.  Although for all practical purposes it may as
>> well be a considered a virtual machine as it is fairly well isolated
>> from the rest of the processes.  But then Linux does tend to wall-off
>> apps from each other better than windows.  At any rate, it's a moot
>> point and irrelevant to Ken's post as nobody was talking about
>> virtual machines.  He doesn't need to boot a different kernel to set
>> up his new Gentoo installation.  He only needs to do what he did do,
>> and that's to mount his new skeleton file system and chroot.

> In any event, there is little need do cross-compiling, since he's
> targeting the same OS on the same hardware.

That's not what I really was saying, nor was it really my point.  But what
he is doing is building a C compiler and set of librarys that are possibly
going to run on a different CPU arch.  DISCLAIMER: I don't recall him
saying that it was going to run on the same exact arch, though he may have.  
Regardless, he *could* very well be considered to be "cross-compiling" his
compiler and libs.  For example maybe he's building on a P4-2.4Ghz right
now for the speed of it, but his final target is a 486.  If so, he's
probably not compiling anything with -MARCH=i686 or -MCPU=i686. ;-)  Sounds
like cross-compiling to me.

--
michael brown

  4:13pm  up 74 days,  3:34,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.00

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by paul cook » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:43:40


Erik Funkenbusch was seen in

comp.os.linux.advocacy to propose the following:



>>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
>>> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup
>>> program?  While chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create
>>> a virtual machine. You could of course use something like user-mode
>>> linux, but you didn't say you used that.

>> It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about,
>> so I will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be
>> used quite correctly when referring to situations other than booting
>> a computer.  Ken was referring to the process of building a
>> staticly-linked and somewhat crippled C compiler and set of librarys,
>> so that he may then build a set that is dynamically-linked and
>> full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap being used to describe the
>> process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda thing.  I'm guessing that
>> you have never set up a cross compiler.

> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214479,00.html

> "In computers, to bootstrap (or "to boot") is to load a program into a
> computer using a much smaller initial program to load in the desired
> program (which is usually an operating system)."

> I don't believe that is what ken was referring to in his original
> message. He said "began the bootstrap", using it as a noun, not a verb
> as in "bootstrapping the compiler" or something similar.

>> He only needs a chrooted environment and not a complete virtual
>> machine to do this.  Although for all practical purposes it may as
>> well be a considered a virtual machine as it is fairly well isolated
>> from the rest of the processes.  But then Linux does tend to wall-off
>> apps from each other better than windows.  At any rate, it's a moot
>> point and irrelevant to Ken's post as nobody was talking about
>> virtual machines.  He doesn't need to boot a different kernel to set
>> up his new Gentoo installation.  He only needs to do what he did do,
>> and that's to mount his new skeleton file system and chroot.

> In any event, there is little need do cross-compiling, since he's
> targeting the same OS on the same hardware.

he has to compile the compiler to match his system... which requires a
pre-compiled compiler in order to do it... this is what he's referring
to. The precompiled compiler is compiled to run on the lowest common
denominator for the Gentoo system (probably i386 for intel machines).
The one he's compiling to is specifically done to take advantage of
extra functions his actual processor has which might be 486, 586, 686
whatever. That way, when it comes to compiling the rest of his system,
it will be done far faster and his new compiler will be the optimum for
his processor.

--
Paul Cooke
  Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
  Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/
 10:35pm  up 8 days,  2:24,  4 users,  load average: 0.02, 0.04, 0.06

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Kenneth Down » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:04:16





>>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The
>>> bootstrap is used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup
>>> program?  While chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create
>>> a virtual machine. You could of course use something like user-mode
>>> linux, but you didn't say you used that.

>> It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about,
>> so I will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be
>> used quite correctly when referring to situations other than booting
>> a computer.  Ken was referring to the process of building a
>> staticly-linked and somewhat crippled C compiler and set of librarys,
>> so that he may then build a set that is dynamically-linked and
>> full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap being used to describe the
>> process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda thing.  I'm guessing that
>> you have never set up a cross compiler.

> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214479,00.html

> "In computers, to bootstrap (or "to boot") is to load a program into a
> computer using a much smaller initial program to load in the desired
> program (which is usually an operating system)."

> I don't believe that is what ken was referring to in his original message.
> He said "began the bootstrap", using it as a noun, not a verb as in
> "bootstrapping the compiler" or something similar.

Correct.  "Began the bootstrap" is gentoo-speak for began creating the
system from scratch, starting with compiling the compiler.

Quote:

>> He only needs a chrooted environment and not a complete virtual
>> machine to do this.  Although for all practical purposes it may as
>> well be a considered a virtual machine as it is fairly well isolated
>> from the rest of the processes.  But then Linux does tend to wall-off
>> apps from each other better than windows.  At any rate, it's a moot
>> point and irrelevant to Ken's post as nobody was talking about
>> virtual machines.  He doesn't need to boot a different kernel to set
>> up his new Gentoo installation.  He only needs to do what he did do,
>> and that's to mount his new skeleton file system and chroot.

> In any event, there is little need do cross-compiling, since he's
> targeting the same OS on the same hardware.

--
Ken
 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Johan Lindquis » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:39:02


On s?n, 20 okt 2002 at 23:11 GMT, gazing longingly at the horizon,

felt a deep, passionate desire to let the following be known:

Quote:> I don't believe that is what ken was referring to in his original
> message. He said "began the bootstrap", using it as a noun, not a
> verb as in "bootstrapping the compiler" or something similar.

Maybe, when you have finally looked at gentoo for the first time in
your life, you may be able to understand what ken was referring to.
Until then, I suggest you avoid commenting on the entire subject of
this particular distro. You've already proven your ineptitude on the
matter twice, I doubt your third attempt will be any more charming.

hth, hand.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
 12:28am  up 48 days,  1:11,  9 users,  load average: 0.16, 0.25, 0.57
$ cat /dev/bollocks                      Registered Linux user #261729
enable bleeding-edge bandwidth

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Bob Hauc » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:09:24




>> -> chroot.  There is no analog to this in the windows world that I
>>    know of (That's an invitation, Erik).  
> Well, there are various tools to create virtual drive mappings to
> directories, which would work the same, since of course Windows doesn't
> have a "root" directory like Linux.  (see subst, for instance).

That is, of course, not the same thing at all.  A chroot seems to be a
whole 'nother machine for the most part.  You don't have any access to
the filesystem outside, which is quite different from what subst does.

It isn't a complete virtual machine, as programs can figure out that the
hardware is shared, but it is good enough for many purposes.

Quote:> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The bootstrap is
> used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup program?  

I believe that is what he means.

Quote:> While chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create a virtual
> machine.  

No, it doesn't, but as I said, it is close enough for many purposes.
I've run the Debian installer in a chroot environment.  It pretty much
works like normal and sets up a complete Debian system inside the
existing one. This can be a very useful thing to do.

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

 
 
 

Linux Remains Incredible

Post by Kenneth Down » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 02:09:28




>> Are you sure you understand what a bootstrap is?  Hint:  The bootstrap is
>> used to boot the machine.  Did you mean start the setup program?  While
>> chroot may create a virtual drive, it doesn't create a virtual machine.
>> You could of course use something like user-mode linux, but you didn't
>> say you used that.

> It's quite apparant that you don't know what Ken was talking about, so I
> will attempt to enlighten you.  The term "boot-strapping" can be used
> quite
> correctly when referring to situations other than booting a computer.  Ken
> was referring to the process of building a staticly-linked and somewhat
> crippled C compiler and set of librarys, so that he may then build a set
> that is dynamically-linked and full-featured.  Hence the term boot-strap
> being used to describe the process.  It's a catch-22/chicken-egg kinda
> thing.  I'm guessing that you have never set up a cross compiler.

...and with a dramatic flair, the bootstrap finished just as I read your
post.  Erik probably still does not know what we are talking about.

--
Ken

 
 
 

1. Why Linux should remain Linux

Besides the obvious that it is a tip of the hat to Linus and that the
OS is already becoming known under that name, consider it to be yet
another UNIX like OS with a recursive acronym (see: GNU, XINU):

<L>inux <I>s <N>ot <U>NI<X>

;-)

        /hpa
--



Most inappropriatly named startup command, winner:  Microsoft Windows

2. CNews setup for local news only

3. PPP connection with the incredible Linux OS!

4. Linux MGR HOWTO

5. The incredible flexibility of Linux.

6. suppress error message

7. Linux and ISDN ISA TAs (plus the incredible Ascend Pipeline 25)

8. curses.h

9. Burning CD's under Linux...simply INCREDIBLE!

10. Incredible News: Linux is a best seller!!!

11. Need to partition remaining free disk space after installed Linux

12. Linux will remain immune

13. KernelJanitor: Convert remaining error returns to return -E Linux 2.5.68