If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far of Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows drive a number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that doesn't happen. Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system. Why? What is Linux doing with the Windows drive? I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your Windows drive. As the drive's access light is saying otherwise. snip While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are attached to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the user wants to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light flashes.... it has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the hard drive, or executing anything on the hard drive. I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have you actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker as Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the system and I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu Live is doing a lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's post? He too has noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you attribute running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows Installer pop-up when you started Windows? Are you implying that the Linux CD boot caused the execution of a Windows Installer executable, even though Linux can't run a Windows Installer file? How do you figure that? Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do you reconcile that with your claim? No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if iband.dll involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I might, but you never see the window. Anyway no problems whatsoever. Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with it. Don't peek into the Windows partition or anything. And just shut Linux down. Totally harmless I would think. Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of times and it happened every single time. There is no excuse, Linux is doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing, most users wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But whatever it is doing it can make some Windows unbootable. As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows bootable or not. That isn't the point. The most important point is that it shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without your permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system (and it is reproducible). ...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux Live CD. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented when you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my system? You can't come up with one single working theory how it can be my system! This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can figure this out. But you can't? Why is that? You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is not documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in your posts about it. The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different ways. If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it use, whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc. I already gave you a working theory... it's some issue with your system. How can I explain what, when I am not on your system? As you seem to be the only person in the world reporting this, on one computer, that points pretty clearly to it being that system's issue, not the Linux Live CD boot. I say once again, we will have to agree to disagree on this. Look Glen. I get that a lot, that it is just your system and nobody else sees it. But what always happen later? Here is one. While running OS/2, I noticed that OS/2 was locking up about twice a week. I reported it on the newsgroups. Yes I got it's just your system, you are the only one that sees it, etc. Being an engineer, I know my system was just fine. But nobody believed me still. Two years later IBM stumbled on the bug. Not only did it affect systems like mine, but all machines. It had to do with pasting between OS/2 applications and DOS applications. And the bug would leave the whole OS in an unstable condition and the whole thing could lockup at any time. So did anybody apologize for harassing me for two years? Nope. Did anybody mention that I found it two years earlier? Nope! It doesn't matter, just so it got fixed is all I cared about. I've been investigating computer problems since the 70's. And I know the difference between user error, hardware fault, and something much bigger than either. And I am usually right every time. And there is something big here going on that needs to be investigated. We can do this as a group or I can do it solo and report my findings. It really doesn't matter to me. Casting aspersions on those who doubt your conclusion is just silly.... your disparaging comments about "any five year old", "not rocket science" and so forth, are just examples of using insults when evidence is not available. It's a very sorry way to discuss something. You bet! And so is the harassment I often receive that it is just you and nobody else, it's just your machine, etc. when I know far better than that. People rather harass others instead of doing the logical and right thing. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." ~ Albert Einstein -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far of Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows drive a number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that doesn't happen. Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system. Why? What is Linux doing with the Windows drive? I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your Windows drive. As the drive's access light is saying otherwise. snip While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are attached to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the user wants to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light flashes.... it has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the hard drive, or executing anything on the hard drive. I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have you actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker as Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the system and I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu Live is doing a lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's post? He too has noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive. "huge amount of drive light flicker" is a subjective and unscientific criteria and is not concrete evidence that anything is being done other than checking the drive. Live CD enumerates the partitions so they can be displayed for mounting. Bart's may do it differently or not at all at boot. Irrelevant. I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a standard Linux Live CD. I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post in an archive such as Google Groups? I also note that the last time you posted about this "issue" a few months ago in this group, Paul's only contribution to the conversation did not corroborate what you were saying then. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in
article ... In , Char Jackson typed: On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in article ... Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows didn't have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And Ubuntu Live doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows partition. I have no idea why Linux needs to touch anything it shouldn't, but it does. And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu Live it popped up a window saying Windows Installer and froze. I much prefer WinPE or BartPE. As they don't play games with your partition like Linux does. rant As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you, this reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs, including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second, Linux Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap *file* by default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have completely flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the deep end and decided to use your drive as swap on its own. Fourth, even if it did use a swap file, that file would have been just that, a file on the file system separate from anything else and Windows wouldn't have cared a whit. Crawl back under your bridge, troll. /rant +1 You nailed it. Nope you both are wrong Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs. and owe us an apology. If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD has trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file when it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my assertion and characterization stands. -- Zaphod Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world. Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you attribute running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows Installer pop-up when you started Windows? Are you implying that the Linux CD boot caused the execution of a Windows Installer executable, even though Linux can't run a Windows Installer file? How do you figure that? Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do you reconcile that with your claim? No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if iband.dll involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I might, but you never see the window. Anyway no problems whatsoever. Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with it. Don't peek into the Windows partition or anything. And just shut Linux down. Totally harmless I would think. Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of times and it happened every single time. There is no excuse, Linux is doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing, most users wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But whatever it is doing it can make some Windows unbootable. As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows bootable or not. That isn't the point. The most important point is that it shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without your permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system (and it is reproducible). ...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux Live CD. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented when you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my system? You can't come up with one single working theory how it can be my system! This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can figure this out. But you can't? Why is that? You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is not documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in your posts about it. The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different ways. If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it use, whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc. snip There you go with "compiling" again. If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site. If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the standard Live CD, you modified it. You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it? -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
On 09/10/2012 09:53 AM, glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In news:k2ink. There you go with "compiling" again. If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site. If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the standard Live CD, you modified it. You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it? Pretty sure Bill is a troll I had to killfile him -- https://www.createspace.com/3707686 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far of Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows drive a number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that doesn't happen. Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system. Why? What is Linux doing with the Windows drive? I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your Windows drive. As the drive's access light is saying otherwise. snip While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are attached to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the user wants to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light flashes.... it has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the hard drive, or executing anything on the hard drive. I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have you actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker as Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the system and I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu Live is doing a lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's post? He too has noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive. "huge amount of drive light flicker" is a subjective and unscientific criteria and is not concrete evidence that anything is being done other than checking the drive. Live CD enumerates the partitions so they can be displayed for mounting. Bart's may do it differently or not at all at boot. Irrelevant. Subjective and unscientific. yes sort of. I could run some more tests, but the amount of light flicker was on the order of what I would expect is something was reading 200MB or more of information. And just checking volumes for mounting I wouldn't expect more than just a quick flash or two. BartPE also checks what drives are available and it never flashes the hard drive light while it is booting. There is a huge difference here. I just booted up Puppy Live. And only when the screen showed loading drive drivers and the Windows drive flashed for about 0.2 second and that is all. That too is perfectly normal. Although Ubuntu hits the Windows drive very aggressively. Totally not normal! I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a standard Linux Live CD. Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the get-go: [Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM] The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community, is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post in an archive such as Google Groups? I have the actual post in my archive complete with headers and all. My personal reference for that post is: C:\My Documents\Posts Backup\Microsoft\ Ubuntu Live Re_ Windows not load 001.nws Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end. http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html I also note that the last time you posted about this "issue" a few months ago in this group, Paul's only contribution to the conversation did not corroborate what you were saying then. Well I don't know which one that you are referring too. Can you give me part of the post, or date or something to go by so I can see what you are referring too? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee wrote: Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you attribute running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows Installer pop-up when you started Windows? Are you implying that the Linux CD boot caused the execution of a Windows Installer executable, even though Linux can't run a Windows Installer file? How do you figure that? Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do you reconcile that with your claim? No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if iband.dll involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I might, but you never see the window. Anyway no problems whatsoever. Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with it. Don't peek into the Windows partition or anything. And just shut Linux down. Totally harmless I would think. Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of times and it happened every single time. There is no excuse, Linux is doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing, most users wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But whatever it is doing it can make some Windows unbootable. As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows bootable or not. That isn't the point. The most important point is that it shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without your permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system (and it is reproducible). ...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux Live CD. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented when you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my system? You can't come up with one single working theory how it can be my system! This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can figure this out. But you can't? Why is that? You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is not documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in your posts about it. The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different ways. If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it use, whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc. snip There you go with "compiling" again. If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... Yes I used the same ISO and no I didn't compile it myself. But somebody else did it for us. Presumably someone from Ubuntu. and it does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site. If you say so. But I have my doubts about that. As you don't know what the person who compiled it actually did. Or do you? If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the standard Live CD, you modified it. Yes, and those I don't have a single problem with. As I tell Linux to leave Windows alone and it does. You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it? I only compiled Xandros. I never compiled any Ubuntu ones and those are the one that I have had problems with. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
Zaphod Beeblebrox typed: On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in article ... In , Char Jackson typed: On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in article ... Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows didn't have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And Ubuntu Live doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows partition. I have no idea why Linux needs to touch anything it shouldn't, but it does. And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu Live it popped up a window saying Windows Installer and froze. I much prefer WinPE or BartPE. As they don't play games with your partition like Linux does. rant As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you, this reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs, including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second, Linux Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap *file* by default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have completely flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the deep end and decided to use your drive as swap on its own. Fourth, even if it did use a swap file, that file would have been just that, a file on the file system separate from anything else and Windows wouldn't have cared a whit. Crawl back under your bridge, troll. /rant +1 You nailed it. Nope you both are wrong Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs. and owe us an apology. If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD has trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file when it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my assertion and characterization stands. Yeah I get that a lot. But I am always proved to be right in the end even if it takes years. Like that OS/2 fiasco. For two years I was complaining to IBM and on the newsgroups that OS/2 Warp had a stability problem. As I was getting the OS freeze up about twice per week. I was losing tons of work because I couldn't save anything. And all I heard was it was just me, it's your hardware, OS/2 is rock stable, and blah, blah, blah. Even though I knew everybody was wrong. Then two years later IBM actually ran into it. And it affected all machines and users. What set it off was copying and pasting back and forth between DOS and OS/2. IBM claimed it left the OS in an unstable state and it was just a matter of time before it would crash. Did anybody say sorry Bill or anything? Nope! Very typical in my experience. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~~ Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
In ,
philo typed: On 09/10/2012 09:53 AM, glee wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In news:k2ink. There you go with "compiling" again. If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site. If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the standard Live CD, you modified it. You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it? Pretty sure Bill is a troll I had to killfile him No, I am definitely not a troll. I just know there is a problem and you can help or you can run and hide. But your hit and run tactics is highly suspicious I must say. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , glee typed: snip I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a standard Linux Live CD. Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the get-go: [Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM] The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community, is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post in an archive such as Google Groups? Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end. http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html snip Other than the one assertion apparently made by Paul, I have found no documented evidence that any *standard* Linux Live CD tries to run from the ISO image if found on the hard drive. Ping Paul and ask him to provide evidence of this. Yes, that link shows the quote you've been using. Again, there is no evidence given. Paul is a very smart guy, but his claim that by using the Linux 'top' command he is somehow showing that the Windows page file is being used by the Live CD is an incorrect assumption on his part. The 'top' command shows CPU processes, kind of like a task manager. Paul stated he used 'top' to see how much swap was evident (it does NOT show where the swap file is), and compared it in size to the existing page file(s) on the Windows and other partitions.... and found similar sizes. That is in no way evidence that the Linux Live CD is using the Windows page file. It shows that the Linux Live CD, running on a system with X amount of RAM, will allocate a certain swap size, similar in size to what Windows allocates on the same system. The fact is, a Live CD allocates a virtual swap file in RAM.... that is what he is seeing with the 'top' command. The Live CD boot divides the RAM into segments, and creates a virtual swap file in RAM from one segment. The another segment created from RAM is used as "storage" like a virtual hard drive, the remaining RAM is used like standard RAM for loading programs, etc. Those Live CDs (Gentoo included) use squashfs to accomplish this. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
....and just to be clear, as a P.S. to my other reply, if you have an
actual Linux installation on the hard drive, in addition to Windows or instead of Windows, some distros of LIve CD *may* use the existing swap partiton of the installed Linux system. This is not the same as using the Windows page file, which the Live CDs do *not* do. In this discussion, we're not talking about a computer that has a Linux installation on the hard dirve, though.... we are talking about systems with Windows only. The hard drive is not mounted without specific input from the user, when using the defaults of the Live CD. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:18 -0400, "glee"
wrote: ...and just to be clear, as a P.S. to my other reply, if you have an actual Linux installation on the hard drive, in addition to Windows or instead of Windows, some distros of LIve CD *may* use the existing swap partiton of the installed Linux system. This is not the same as using the Windows page file, which the Live CDs do *not* do. In this discussion, we're not talking about a computer that has a Linux installation on the hard dirve, though.... we are talking about systems with Windows only. The hard drive is not mounted without specific input from the user, when using the defaults of the Live CD. IMHO, Bill's pretty much pi**ing into the wind with his claims until he steps up and provides some actual technical information. A blinking HD activity LED doesn't tell a convincing story. How about something like, a complete set of file CRCs from before and after running the live CD. Compare the CRCs to see which, if any, files have changed. A second step could be a DIFF to see how the affected file(s), if any, have changed. I suggest doing this by booting a live CD twice, with CRC snapshots taken before, after, and after, since booting Windows will absolutely cause changes that will skew the test results. We could discuss the finer points until everyone's satisfied that it's a valid test, but in the meantime we've basically got the resident nut job making a claim and not being able to back it up. It's a stalemate until someone steps up and does some *actual* testing, rather than watching a flickering LED. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:20:18 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ... In , Zaphod Beeblebrox typed: On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in article ... In , Char Jackson typed: On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in article ... Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows didn't have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And Ubuntu Live doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows partition. I have no idea why Linux needs to touch anything it shouldn't, but it does. And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu Live it popped up a window saying Windows Installer and froze. I much prefer WinPE or BartPE. As they don't play games with your partition like Linux does. rant As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you, this reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs, including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second, Linux Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap *file* by default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have completely flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the deep end and decided to use your drive as swap on its own. Fourth, even if it did use a swap file, that file would have been just that, a file on the file system separate from anything else and Windows wouldn't have cared a whit. Crawl back under your bridge, troll. /rant +1 You nailed it. Nope you both are wrong Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs. and owe us an apology. If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD has trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file when it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my assertion and characterization stands. Yeah I get that a lot. But I am always proved to be right in the end even if it takes years. Like that OS/2 fiasco. For two years I was complaining to IBM and on the newsgroups that OS/2 Warp had a stability problem. As I was getting the OS freeze up about twice per week. I was losing tons of work because I couldn't save anything. And all I heard was it was just me, it's your hardware, OS/2 is rock stable, and blah, blah, blah. Even though I knew everybody was wrong. Then two years later IBM actually ran into it. And it affected all machines and users. What set it off was copying and pasting back and forth between DOS and OS/2. IBM claimed it left the OS in an unstable state and it was just a matter of time before it would crash. Did anybody say sorry Bill or anything? Nope! Very typical in my experience. IBM rightly ignored your vague declaration that "omg something is wrong" and again rightly did not give you any credit because you didn't actually contribute anything that would help identify the problem or provide a solution. Among other things, I've done software quality assurance testing and what you are doing doesn't qualify. Documentation, debug logs, screen captures, before and after disk images / file CRCs, etc., verification on multiple systems, systematic elimination of other variables to determine the actual cause of a problem that was observed - those are (some of) the things that prove a problem. Until and unless you provide a repeatable set of steps to duplicate the issue, you are just waving your hands and proclaiming that the sky is falling. Pick up the acorn, Henny Penny, and recognize it for what it is. In this case, it is a consequence of your own actions, not a flaw in the system. -- Zaphod "The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Undeletable file. I'm stumped.
On 09/11/2012 07:35 AM, glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: snip I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a standard Linux Live CD. Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the get-go: [Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM] The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community, is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post in an archive such as Google Groups? Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end. http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html snip Other than the one assertion apparently made by Paul, I have found no documented evidence that any *standard* Linux Live CD tries to run from the ISO image if found on the hard drive. Ping Paul and ask him to provide evidence of this. Yes, that link shows the quote you've been using. Again, there is no evidence given. Paul is a very smart guy, but his claim that by using the Linux 'top' command he is somehow showing that the Windows page file is being used by the Live CD is an incorrect assumption on his part. The 'top' command shows CPU processes, kind of like a task manager. Paul stated he used 'top' to see how much swap was evident (it does NOT show where the swap file is), and compared it in size to the existing page file(s) on the Windows and other partitions.... and found similar sizes. That is in no way evidence that the Linux Live CD is using the Windows page file. It shows that the Linux Live CD, running on a system with X amount of RAM, will allocate a certain swap size, similar in size to what Windows allocates on the same system. The fact is, a Live CD allocates a virtual swap file in RAM.... that is what he is seeing with the 'top' command. The Live CD boot divides the RAM into segments, and creates a virtual swap file in RAM from one segment. The another segment created from RAM is used as "storage" like a virtual hard drive, the remaining RAM is used like standard RAM for loading programs, etc. Those Live CDs (Gentoo included) use squashfs to accomplish this. I've been looking through the archives all day that led me to the Windows swapfile. Paul wasn't the first who mentioned it. I did find some posts of this problem from 2009 which I said then that restoring the registry with ERUNT also corrected the problem. I didn't recall that part until I read it today. Anyway the post that I am looking for was by some Linux guru from 2009 I believe that knew tons about Linux and he stated he thought Ubuntu creating a swapfile on the Windows drive was the problem. I just haven't found his post so far. But I'll keep looking. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5 Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 3.1 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|