From: yan@indetech.com ()
Subject: Re: linux install experience, newbie questions
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:23:48 GMT

Posted as requested by the following email:

From uunet!cdf.toronto.edu!g1krakow Sat Sep  5 02:13:46 1992
In article <1992Sep4.194304.10830@indetech.com> you write:
>
>Sorry the first post didn't get out, saved to the wrong place.
>
>[long post]
>
>I am a newbie installing linux. Below are my experience, questions, etc.
>
>The experience may help another newbie; Also if you got an answer to my
>question please let me know.
>
>Hardware:
>
>386-40 + hd +4mb:
>
>40m dos
>20m extended dos
>24m not used
>40m linux
>
>VGA+Trident --> Question: do I have no hope for X?
>
>Software:
>
>.97 boot
>.97p1 root
>
>Disk 3 to 10 of SLS package. tar'd to 3 inch floppies.
>
>GCC 2.2.2d stuff.
>
>Question: can some one tell me in brief why I want .97 rather than .96,
>and in what level things are incompatible?
>
>This installation is used primarily for someone to learn C programming
>on unix systems.
>
You don't. I have been running .96 patch 2 for quite a while and wuold
be still running it were it not for X server for ATI which requires 
GCC 2.2.2d which, in turn requires .97pl1.
I believe SLS comes as cross-section at .96 Get all SLS disks
and proceed with install. Said to be easy. (ie you dont need .97root and boot
disks. SLS package comes with it.)
>Install experience and problems:
>
>1. Dos partition the disk. (fdisk). one primary 40m, one extended 20m
>which has D: drive on it. (I have 130m total)
>
>2. Boot 0.97 then 0.97p1 root floppy
>3. Install on hard disk, /dev/hda4, 40m. no swap no user
>
>Question here: if I make the /dev/hda4 active, then DOS won't boot on C:
>saying that illegal partition table entry or some such. Apparently only
>one active partition is allowed in DOS. This is not covered in the FAQ.
Why should you make it an active partition. Unless you want to boot from
hardrive - in which case you need special programs (included in SLS??)-leave
your DOS part active. I have been using Linux for 5 months now
and stiil boot from floppy. I simply do not see need for booting from
HD. 10 sec difference, and UNIX is not DOS. It doesn't hang up (ussually)
and is meant to be up for months.
>
>4. go back to DOS, fix the bood disk, boot to hard drive.
>
>5. tar SLS package
>
>6. Question: found that all my /dev/*fd* entries are changed!!.
>/dev/fd{0 1} use to have major minor of 2 0 or some such, now they are 0
>0. Am I doing things wrong or is this the change between two versions?
>
>6. go back to 0.97p1 root floppy and do install again, this correct the
>/dev/fd* stuff. (just get the root dir files)
>
>8. Now I have a 0.97 boot imag, with some 0.97p1 binaries + files, plus
>whatever the rest come from SLS which is .96
>
>Question -- am I in trouble? I really liked to have newer stuff, but I
>should probably have used all 0.96 stuff, given that the system is used
>for learning C programming on UNIX.
YES! You should use it all as SLS package comes. I think there is no need
for .97 unless
	1) You are a OS hacker .
	2) You need new stuff from .97 (dynamic cache, TCP/IP, or other as 
		I did)
	3) If you really need it get FULL SLS installed first. Then get kernel
		sources and compile it yourself. It is easy - thanx to Linus 
			and H.J. Lu.

>
>Question 2 -- I only found that ps didn't work, where can I find a
>better ps binary?
Ha! 'ps' is one of those programs you need to recompile it with every new
kernel you install. For really different kernels (with memory accsess
changed) you need to change the ps source. You have ps from .96 and .97 kernel.
You need new ps package (includes w,free,tload,top) for .97 and need to recomp
ile it. So my advise: stick with full SLS.
>
>Question 3 -- how can I make vi not insert blanks? get the .96 termcap
>file?
>
>Extended Install
>
>9. get 0.97 source and install
>10. patch <.97p1.patch or some. Got whole bunch of "hunt" failures, some
>message complaining about that "this looks like new style diff to me" or
>some such. Remember that I probably have .96's patch command, am I ok at
>this point?
yeah. If patch went with no errors (ie finished) you probably OK.
Patch hasn't change much.
You still can check it manually. diffs files are easy to understand.
>
>11. patch <.97p2.patch, same as above, but it even ask me why I am
>reversing the patch done above! I just asked it to go ahead.
>
>12. Question -- what have I got? 0.97 p2 source? really messed up 0.97
>source?
>
>13. I forgot if I installed the .97p1inc that came from gcc2.2.2d or
>not, anyway I have it.
>
>14. Tested that gcc from SLS works
>
>
>
>Problems with SLS
>
>15. as stated by other posters:  /tmp has wrong permissions, so is
>/dev/*fd* which is not writeable by other users, causing mtools to fail.
>emacs is missing a link from /usr/local/emacs to /usr/emacs ( path may
>be wrong I don't remember).
>
>Install GCC2.2.2d
>
>Question -- what is the difference, overall, between the gcc that's in
>SLS (2.2.2) and the 2.2.2d version? yes I can read the release note but
>I simply don't understand what is a jump table, let alone some change to
>it.
Jump table is (for my common no-C wizard understandingh) a neat think
which let you use programs compiled with shared libraries (loadable at
execution time to save disk space)  even if you change those libraries.
That is big difference between 2.2.2 and 2.2.2d. But it is said
that for gcc 3.0 you will still need to recompile the programs with shared.
So go figure ...
>
>16. Did as readme said, the gcc set of files are from a dos disk, and the
>name is really messed up, I have to restore them one by one as best as I
>could
>
>17. install.2.x
>
>went through remarkably without major problems, as much as I can tell.
>
>18. tested gcc works, this is the 2.2.2d gcc. Also, as this point I
>found out that my disk has much more files than before the gcc install.
>
>19. emacs complain that libx11.blah isn't found
>
>20. ln -s /lib/lib.so.2blah /lib/libX11.blah
>
>21 emacs runs fine (remember I have to do a link from /usr/local/emacs
>to somewhere)
Yeah, I don't have emacs but I know it needs X11 stuff. And since it was
compiled with 2.2.2 it needs it in that specific place. This is not jump
table stuff. With jump table you have one library and all ver can use it.
>
>
>Now I am in trouble, people with more experience please help me, 
>
>22. after a while, gcc would never work, gcc -v would produce an error:
>
>can't load /lib/lib.so.2blah, 
>Version mismatch (or something like this)
>
>Is this somehow related to the stupid step 20? It worked for a while
>(gcc), then won't anymore
>
Wow, I dont know (link shouldn't hurt, seems it did ???)
>
>23. reinstall of gcc from SLS would not help, gave me the same error
>
>24. blow away everything, repeat the install again, but forget GCC2.2.2d
>
>25. this time I am smart, I copied some /lib/libc.2.2.2 to
>/lib/libX11.blah, rather than doing a link.
>
>26. I never dared to install GCC2.2.2d again
>
>
>Anyway it took me a while, but linux is a great system overall. 
>
>But I think that in the FAQ, we should have an entry to help out the
>newbies (non testers who probably want to get a stable system to use,
>rather then installing things all day):
>
>0.96 can be had by a SLS package, and is easier to install
>
>0.97px is better than 0.96 because xxxx, also xxxx is not compatible
>between the two version.
>
>you can upgrade from 0.96 to 0.97, by swapping the files xxxx/and
>following the procedure yyyy...
>
>GCC 2.2.2d is different from SLS/gcc2.2.2(?) because ...., to install at
>your own risk because then your debugger needs to be changed too(?)
>
 Yes but who is going to do it? Try yourself. Once you get it all working,
post FAQ and your answers to the net, to verify it is OK, then apply then to
FAQ. Remember:do not complain! Linux is a product of good will of people
most of whom are real proffesionals! If you want their help, be polite
and prepare to contribute something yourself.
Ok sorry, you have been polite, but just in case. There has been many
complaining in that group, and it is just not fair to all those hackers
thanks to whom we have Linux and they deserve more, much more that complaining.
>
>This is a long post, if you read through here, thanks, and if possible,
>let me know if you have answer to any questions.
>
>Xudong


Hope that helps. Also, could you please post it as I lost my net write access
and think this should be of help to others

				Rafal
-- 
/|| Numbers exist only in our minds. There is no physical entity that
 ||_is_ number 1. If there were, 1 would be in a place of honor in 
 || some great museum of science, and past it would file a steady
==== stream of mathematicians gazing at 1 in wonder and awe.