Red Hat 6.2

[Dapper Dan 0]

Just for fun, I downloaded the ISO for Red Hat 6.2 to see what Linux and Red Hat was like way before I started running it. It is extremely primitive to install by today's standards, although I never could get past the partitioning. Even though I would assign partitions, it still would not let me go to the next phase.

 

It's probably an exercise in pointlessness anyway since 6.2 didn't recognize my new video card. Maybe I'll try it on an older box to see what the "good old days" were like!

[martouf 0]

maybe you're experiencing the nostalgia of the 1024 cylinder barrier?

 

that is, the boot partition must occur before and be completely contained within

the first 1024 cylinders of the disk.

 

 

[Dapper Dan 0]

My /boot partition is at the very beginning of the hard drive and well before where the barrier would have been. I was going to install 6.2, then afterwards, change /boot back to the one I presently have, which of course I've already saved, then tailor grub to give me the choice of booting 6.2.

 

My machine is a relatively new Dell which to my knowledge doesn't have the barrier. Would Red Hat 6.2 still be looking for such a setup, and if it doesn't see the barrier, won't let me continue?

I'm not even sure when 6.2 came out. Such a comparatively archaic version probably has a few lesson in it I can learn.

[martouf 0]

wait.. do you mean you're only installing the kernel in /boot

but you're intending to use an already set-up filesystem elsewhere

on the disk?

 

If you're using a journaled filesystem, I believe RH6.2 pre-dates

many of the current journaled filesystem options.

 

Any hints on the other vtys as you attempt the disk partitioning part

of the install?

 

The 1024 cyl "barrier" isn't so much a barrier as it is/was a limitation

of using AT BIOS compatible CylHdsSec (CHS) addressing.

The Cyl number used 10 bits, hence the 1024 "barrier".

 

 

[Dapper Dan 0]

Since we've been seeing problems with the Fedora partitioning tool in Core 2 and, I do believe to some extent in Core 1, I decided to use QTparted to create my partition for RH 6.2. I thought ext2 would be a good choice since I wasn't sure if there was even a ext3 back then.

 

My partitions (were to) look like this:

 

/boot - ext3 - 980.5 mb (to boot between RH 6.2 and Fedora Core 1)

 

/ - ext3 - 26.5 GB (Fedora Core 1)

 

/home - ext3 - 26.5 GB (shared between RH 6.2 and Fedora Core 1)

 

/ - ext2 - 6 GB (RH 6.2)

 

You think 6.2 doesn't like that my /home and /boot partitions are formatted with ext3?

[martouf 0]

I'm certain RH6 can ignore the ext3 partitions as long as you don't

ask it to mount them... hang on - memory flash - RH6 will mount the ext3

filesystems as ext2 but won't (of course) update the fs journal.

I think your best bet is to provide ext2 fs'es for RH6 otherwise FC1

is going to report fs errors.

 

Now that I see your disk layout, I suspect the problem is the whole RH6 'world'

does not live below the 4GB mark on your disk. 3GB for RH6 should be plenty,

and try putting it immediately following your boot partition.

Hint: what's 2^32 - 1 ?

 

BTW, why such a gigantic boot partition? 30MB for one kernel or

120MB for four kernels ought to be plenty enough.

 

 

[Dapper Dan 0]

Originally posted by martouf:BTW, why such a gigantic boot partition? 30MB for one kernel or 120MB for four kernels ought to be plenty enough.

 

LOL, I had a feeling you'd notice that! No particular reason. It's just, I've got a 120 GB hard drive which is far more by double than I'll ever need. I think I originally had it at 1 GB and the partitioner rounded back down from that for some reason.

 

[Dapper Dan 0]

Shes a loadin!

 

I have a six year old HP and tried to install 6.2 on but it wasn't familiar with the video card. I dusted off my trusty old ATI mach 64, and 6.2 found it and loves it!

 

I had Gnome/Enlightenment running, but it seems there's no way to configure 10/100 NIC's. Luckily, I have an Actiontec 56 k serial modem that should do the job. I'm on my second install now, and decided to do "custom" and install everything. The install interface is not that different from Fedora Core 1! In fact, in some ways, it is even clearer!

 

This is really fun! I'm getting to see Red Hat years before I ever got involved with it! It's kind of like paleo-computer science

[humble 0]

I never tried RH but the installation tool from SuSE occasionally hangs at problems with graphics.

For this case your can choose "text-mode" installation (or at least something like VGA 640x480) at the very beginning of the process (before booting the inst-kernel).

[Dapper Dan 0]

Strangely enough, a few days ago I tried installing Suse Pro 9.0, and it hung on me too! What's with that?? I was very disappointed because I really want to check it out.

 

This Redhat 6.2 under KDE, is not nearly as archaic as I had imagined! There are plenty of very useful programs there! The icons look way out of date, but it's all there! Gnome/Ennlightenment doesn't feel as comfortable as KDE, and doesn't seem to be as configurable.

 

I'm starting to believe this wouldn't be a bad choice as a distro if you have a really old box you wanted to put Linux on. The install was very easy.

 

Does anyone know if it's possible to configure 6.2 for high speed internet? I'm not seeing a way to configure it for that, only dial up. Surely there was a way to network it with other machines.

 

Also, does anyone know when 6.2 first came out? Man! Had I known then what I do now, I might not have ever used Windows at all!

[martouf 0]

CNN.com - Technology - did a "preview" of RH6 in April 2000.

 

what do you mean "high speed internet"? You mean faster than 56kbps?

 

Oh! You mean hook up to a LAN. A LAN that's connected to the Internet. 8)

 

Sure. if you've got a NIC it recognizes, you can set up your 10Mbps ethernet

interface.. or would you prefer token ring (16Mbps)?

 

 

[Dapper Dan 0]

Is it just me, or is martouf the only one here who has difficulty understanding my posts?

[martouf 0]

uhh, Dan, where's the smiley?

 

You know this Inter-web thing is just a fad, right?

 

Dedicated 56kbps lines (56kbps data plus 8kbps signalling) are the way to go.

None of this newfangled packet switching network stuff. Circuit switched ATM.

Over fiber.

 

 

p.s.

 

 

[danleff 0]

What is Dapper Dan talking about? 8)

 

Good question. You got me thinking about this also.

 

I'll look this up and see.

 

Can you get into the kernel and see if any drivers are there for networking, like 10/100 options and such?

[martouf 0]

consider this: if you run RH6 under VMware, you won't need to scrounge up

and dust off a bunch of old hardware just to match RH6's native capabilities.

 

As best I recall, there really wasn't any direct hardware support for things

like DSL modems at the time. It was expected the DSL modem be an external box

with an ethernet port.