iB::Topic::Why do I still do regular HD installs of DSL?

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » User Feedback » Why do I still do regular HD installs of DSL?

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (19) </ ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Why do I still do regular HD installs of DSL?, learning and educating

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

betchern0t Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 04 2006,06:47

One approach that I have been thinking about is to have a backup and restore file per user. I haven't gone back to check the frugal docco to check that the boot cheat codes will allow the level of differentiation required. Got to sort out this *(%*$*& printing first:-{)=

Cheers Paul

mikshaw

Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004

Posted: July 04 2006,14:08

As I said, the backup/restore system would need to be rewritten in order to work this way. Unless you were very careful about it, it would work best if KNOPPIX was remastered to include the changes in the base system...otherwise you'd have all of your users overwriting the some of the same files, which could easily get complicated and you risk losing personl data if shutdown is not completed successfully every time.

The easiest thing I can think of right now is to modify /usr/bin/filetool.sh to concatenate all users' .filetool.lst files and create a backup from that. This isn't ideal, though, and there is still the possibility of failure. A rewrite + remaster is the safest and most effective way to accomodate multipule users in backup/restore as far as I'm concerned.

--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html

brianw

Group: Members
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: July 04 2006,23:50

Still doing regular HD installs because:

96 Megs ram in laptop is OK for HD install but not for much else. I do alot of adding software (mostly not DSLs) and some require loading at init time so HD install is better. I have a multi user system and an HD install is easy for this. I can use any method to add software and don't need to worry about file lists backups etc. I don't have a concern about hackers so I don't need the security of read only system. I have a laptop and it is my only system so I don't need to worry about "taking my desktop" with me. When I do need an OS on another system the LiveCD is plenty as it is to work with (if the system requires something special chances are I won't have it "built in" anyway). I can't run toram and I need access to my CD so I must do an HD install anyway. I can make persistent home and opt (and any other partitions I want with a regular HD install, within the confines of startup, i.e. can't make etc and a few others a seperate partition it just won't work) so a regular HD install is best for me. It only takes a few minutes to reinstall if I need (I even use KDM which is in the base system and needed during init so would be hard to work with, but only takes a few moments to reinstall if I need just do an ln -s on /var/cache/apt/archives with all my apts on CD). I have even modified the scripts so that any user can install mydsl extensions (not just the DSL user). Unless you are worried about corrupting your system (virus, hacker, self inflicted, etc...) then a regular HD install offers the most flexability with the least administration (IMHO).

kenboyles72 Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Aug. 10 2006,03:17

I actually have two types of installs, usb drive and harddrive install. Yeah, I know they are pretty much the same. I have the usb pendrive install for my P4 pc. I have WinXP installed with only one hdd at the moment with two partitions. One for the os and the other for backups and installed apps. The P4 has an usb boot option, so I just plug in the pen drive and reboot into DSL. The other is a hdd install on an IBM ThinkPad 380XD with a max of only 96 megs of ram. It was given to me without a hdd, so I bought a 40 gig and threw in it. I kinda like the idea of a frugal install, but I guess I'm stuck on my way of doing a hdd install. Even with a hdd install, you can still do a backup. As a current user of Windoze, I make backups frequently, in the case that MS has a brainfart and displays BSOD. I do have seperate partitions for opt and such, so if I do have to reinstall (probably will be my fault,changing conf files or such), none of my apps are wiped out. Then again, if I change a file, I first rename the original file with added .bak extesion. If something gets screwed, just boot with live cd, rename original file, reboot and all's well. Plus with a hdd install, IMO I can easily expand it to what ever I want.

daldred

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Jan. 05 2007,17:44

I've just been reading through this thread in the hope it might help me resolve my question, but if anything I'm even less certain which is the right route for me!

I posted a question about what sort of install was best for a very low-spec laptop here:

http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....t=16850

Can anyone who's been watching this topic help me understand the pros and cons?

92 replies since May 16 2005,16:25

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (19) </ ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » User Feedback » Why do I still do regular HD installs of DSL?