Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I thought you guys might like to know this, as I just found it out. As most of you know, I had a problem with Partition Magic which corrupted my original NTFS partition, (Windows XP), making it unbootable. I tried to solve this problem by booting into DOS, using FDisk to resize the partitions and then reinstalling. At this point, my recovery CD gave me an error.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS ERROR IS COMMON TO ALL RECOVERY DISK, OR ONLY THE ONES PROVIDED WITH COMPAQ/HP SYSTEMS!
That being said, I've reproduced here an excerpt from an email received from Compaq/HP tech support:
"Performing a FullRestore will restore the system to the original factory image and any changes that have been made to the system will be deleted. You can perform a FullRestore using a Recovery CD or the QuickRestore CD depending on the CD that is given with the system.
The Compaq Recovery CD uses .BIN application files that run when the computer starts with the CD. It first looks for the factory.pqi file on the hard disk found on the D: drive or the system save partition. If the Recovery CD is able to read the image file, it copies the files to the C: drive by reloading the operating system and associated software programs on the computer.
If the Recovery CD is unable to read the image file stored on the system save partition, it gives an error. The computer cannot be restored to the factory default condition using the Recovery CD.
_ _ _NOTE: _The Recovery CD cannot be used to restore the system if the FDISK command has been used."
It was the last part that sent up a red flag for me. Because I did this, I effectively prevented my Recovery CD from working.
Since so many people here are interested in dual booting between Windows XP and some form of Linux, I thought I should post this here. In my case, it was one accident leading to another. Hopefully, this will prevent someone else from making an accident or having a big accident turn into a monumental one!
Good luck!
Last edited by Sadie Newlinux; 04-23-2003 at 09:36 AM.
I also have a Compaq branded machine which comes with 4 cd's which are run in order at boot to restore the machine.
I gave up using them when I discovered that they deleted the Linux partitions. They install XP Home which locks the partition sizes, thus no resizing under Linux at a later stage.
Last time I used a win98 boot floppy to make a basic fat32 partition, installed 98, then XP over the top of 98 (my XP will NOT install from DOS). This done Linux can then be installed and the rest of the disk choped up as desired.
Must admit I haven't come across the "cannot restore if FDISK has been run" though.
Branded machines are almost as bad as Windows for trying their hardest to not allow one to install what OS's one wants to.
Originally posted by Sadie Newlinux The Compaq Recovery CD uses .BIN application files that run when the computer starts with the CD. It first looks for the factory.pqi file on the hard disk found on the D: drive or the system save partition. If the Recovery CD is able to read the image file, it copies the files to the C: drive by reloading the operating system and associated software programs on the computer.
If the Recovery CD is unable to read the image file stored on the system save partition, it gives an error. The computer cannot be restored to the factory default condition using the Recovery CD.
Argh! I knew it!
I've got an HP (HP bought Compaq, but they're different) and I have a hidden 'recovery partition' and had to order the disks separately and can't get a straight answer out of HP support. So it may not apply, but I suspected something like this. What the hell kind of sense does that make? If you trash your hard drive the recovery disks look on THE HARD DRIVE for files or they won't work? So, basically, if you can use the disks, you don't need them and if you need them, you can't use them. Un&$%*ingbelievable. I was going to format that partition and use it for Linux rather than trying to resize NTFS. And I'm still going to. Screw it.
But it pisses me off. That's only a little more stupid than putting the 'recovery files' on the hard drive to begin with. Put the 'recovery files' on the same device that will need recovering. That's like putting two car keys on the same damn ring so you'll have a "spare" in case you lose the keyring. Morons.
Quote:
Branded machines are almost as bad as Windows for trying their hardest to not allow one to install what OS's one wants to.
*nods* One and the same - hardware makers are just satellites of MS and contributing to making PCs as proprietary as Apples. The great virtue of PCs was the clones and IBM not stopping them. So now, instead of IBM controlling PCs, MS does and we're back at square one.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by salparadise I also have a Compaq branded machine which comes with 4 cd's which are run in order at boot to restore the machine.
I gave up using them when I discovered that they deleted the Linux partitions. They install XP Home which locks the partition sizes, thus no resizing under Linux at a later stage.
Blah, I only have one. FOUR?? What the heck did they give you, the Library of Congress? Yuck! That's the problem I have with XP recovery. The rotten part is, XP is cool, and I need it in order to run the apps I need for my accounting business. *sigh* But when I restore from disk, it takes the whole harddrive and makes it one huge NTFS partition - and we've seen what happens if I try to repartition it another way. (If you haven't seen, check out my other posts - ugh!)
After talking to Compaq, they told me that you can buy for $10.00 "Quick Restore" disks. They look on the harddrive, and perform a restore function, same as the recovery disk, if the image is intact. If not, they upload the proper image onto the disk and then restore from that. I would *much* rather have the full program disks - but who wants to spend $250.00 to get a working copy of Windows XP? I figure that the $10.00 is the cheaper option, but I'm concerned about all the problems. Arghh.. questions, questions..
Last time I used a win98 boot floppy to make a basic fat32 partition, installed 98, then XP over the top of 98 (my XP will NOT install from DOS). This done Linux can then be installed and the rest of the disk choped up as desired.
This is what I was trying when I did fdisk. I have a win98 boot floppy. Because windows isn't installed on the system, it's automatically running it into WinDOS - if you know what I mean. That's where I tried to fdisk and repartition the harddrive. But I'm getting some strange errors in fdisk now. It says that I can't remove the Extended DOS partition while there's still a logical drive there, but when I try to remove the logical drives it says there aren't any. So I'm stuck. Any suggestions on *this* one would be greatly appreciated!
Also, if your computer uses multiple-disks and a disk image, how did you manage to retain the image after partitioning? That's my problem. I fdisked hoping to make a separate partition and restore XP over top of something - Win98, Win95.. I have copies of those.. somewhere.. but it says no disk image found. Which leads me back to square one. =(
Must admit I haven't come across the "cannot restore if FDISK has been run" though.
This is only an issue if your Recovery Disk runs an install based off a harddrive image. If you have what they call "Quick Restore" disks, then the disks look to see if the image is present, and restore the image prior to reinstalling the OS.
Ah well, today I'm sitting around trying to decide what to do. I can't install Win95 because I can't find the licensing numbers. My win98 disk is missing (my husband probably knows where they are but he's out of town and unreachable with the military), and my WinXP won't work without a replaced disk image. So, I'm sitting and reading through Linux HOWTOs and hoping for a better chance tomorrow!
It's been a while since I tried this, so I don't really remember too many details. I got my brother's old Compaq a while back and decided to reinstall the OS. Since it came with Win98, and I wanted 98SE, I decided to fdisk it and set up the partitions the way I wanted (by default, it has a large C: with everything on it, and a small D: for recovery junk).
Long story short, I could not get 98SE installed on it. When I tried using the recovery CD to just start over, it had major issues, because the partitions were not set up the way it wanted them to be (since I had fdisked it), and yeah, I think it was looking for stuff on the nonexistent D: recovery partition. Dumb.
What I ended up having to do was use a different set of recovery disks, which my brother had acquired from Compaq after a hard drive crash. Apparently they only supply you with the one recovery CD (which uses the D: drive, and can't recover from post-fdisk), and my bro had a hard drive crash, and Lo! The retarded recovery CD could not help. After some time on the phone with Compaq, he apparently convinced them to mail him the REAL recovery CDs.
Anyhow, we still have the piece of junk. It's the only computer in our apartment that does not run Linux yet That will change someday though...
What the hell kind of sense does that make? If you trash your hard drive the recovery disks look on THE HARD DRIVE for files or they won't work? So, basically, if you can use the disks, you don't need them and if you need them, you can't use them. Un&$%*ingbelievable. I was going to format that partition and use it for Linux rather than trying to resize NTFS. And I'm still going to. Screw it.
It makes a weird sort of sense, in some ways. Think about it. They don't have to pay the multiple-thousands of dollars to have *hard* copies of the software to pass on to everyone. They don't want to spend that kind of money, because if they do, they have to charge more money for the computers in order to recover costs. So, to keep costs down, they buy a license, and the license allows them to do only certain things with the software - hence a disk image.
This means that computers cost less to come with pre-loaded softs - a good thing for us! - but never come with full versions making it more work to recover from problems - a bad thing for us! Still, they say you get what you pay for.. *ponder*.
However, if you think about it, the problem is really with Microsoft. If they weren't overcharging for their software, the computer manufacturers would be more willing to pay for the hard copies, and would, in turn, pass them onto to people who purchase their hardware.
So, do I want to go out now and pay $250.00 for Microsofts full version of the software, seeing as how I didn't get it when I paid for my computer? No. I didn't want to pay for it when I purchased the computer, and I certainly don't want to pay for it now. I might, however, throw the $10.00 at Compaq just to get myself out of this mess.
However, knowing what I now know, and knowing how difficult it is for the manufacturers I will do one of either two things:
1) Save up a buy a machine replete with full-version software.
2) Build my own machine and then purchase the software myself. Or buy a prebuilt with no software and buy them myself.
But I won't pay an in-between price for an in-between system ever again.
As for installing just linux. I have to tell you - I'm sorely tempted. If I could run Quickbooks, Peachtree Accounting and a variety of other little programs that I need for my work. And if I wouldn't lose 3/4 of my games because I can't get them running under linux, I would! I've been using linux fully for one week now, and I love it! It never crashes, never gives me errors and there always seems to be a way to fix the problem myself. Yes, it takes some research, time and a willingness to not have a tech telling me what to do. But I'd rather do stuff to my own system, then trust someone else from another company anyways. *shrug*
But it pisses me off. That's only a little more stupid than putting the 'recovery files' on the hard drive to begin with. Put the 'recovery files' on the same device that will need recovering. That's like putting two car keys on the same damn ring so you'll have a "spare" in case you lose the keyring. Morons.
Supposedly, they addressed this by making the "Quick Restore" disks. So that the disk image is restored if it's been corrupted, and the software then loads from that. *WHY* they don't just send the Quick Restore disks instead of the stupid Recovery disks, I don't know. Seems to me it costs them more to do it this way. Printing two sets of disks, then having to mail one set later? Makes no sense. Of course, I asked about downloading the Quick Restore discs from the web (I was willing to pay for them, of course, but wanted them quick!). Their response?
"I see that you want to download the QuickRestore CD as you cannot wait
to the CD's to be shipped through mail. Due to Electronic distribution
law the QuickRestore CD's are not available for Download. But you can
use the over night shipment option to get the Express delivery of the
CD's. But you have to pay the express delivery. The details can be
availed when you order. "
Note the words "Electronic Distribution Law" in that response. Essentially, what he's saying, is that Microsoft wouldn't license them to put their Quick Restore disks on the web. Microsoft wants to make it as inconvenient as possible for you to get what you need, so that in a fit you'll throw your hands up in the air and say, "I give up! I can go out and purchase the full version today from any software store in the area! I can't wait anymore!"
Now, the people who said I was "bashing Microsoft" in my posts about StarOffice know *why*. This is just ridiculous, isn't it?
*nods* One and the same - hardware makers are just satellites of MS and contributing to making PCs as proprietary as Apples. The great virtue of PCs was the clones and IBM not stopping them. So now, instead of IBM controlling PCs, MS does and we're back at square one.
You're certainly right about this, although I'm not so sure the computer companies are "letting" them do anything. Look at this way: the computer companies are in a tight spot. Most people nowadays *do* want "instant gratification". Which is, I believe, one of the major reasons we don't see *more* people migrating to Linux boxes - linux takes a *lot* of time to learn, setup, etc.! So.. the computer companies know this. Many of them offer the option to purchase a system with no software - look at Best Buy, for instance. However, most people don't want to be bothered with having to purchase the software and then load it themselves.
The computer companies don't want to pay $250.00/copy to Microsoft for every copy of the OS they need to put on a machine. Even if they got a deal for buying in bulk and only paid $100.00/copy - if they sold 1000 machines that's still $100,000! And they'd have to recover the $100 they spent to provide the software *and* load it, by charging the consumer say.. double that. So now, computer prices go up by $200.00 - easily. Really, when given the choice between a Windows XP system, with everything fully loaded for $1000 and one with everything loaded for $1200, which one are you going to choose? For most people, it's a no brainer because they don't think about the ramifactions of getting the full version software as part of the deal.
Also, if the companies don't have to pay the exhorbitant licensing fees, they also don't have to pay to have CD copies printed, or for them to be distributed with their boxes. This makes it easier, and less expensive to ship systems to stores.
All this, works in favor of the consuer, in terms that it allows the computer manufacturers to keep prices low. It does *not* work in favor of people who are technically savvy at all, though. Because most of the people found *here* wanted more. They wanted the ability to control what was on their systems, to remove unused applications, to make their desktops look nicer and brighter, to reconfigure their menus, to install non-proprietory apps without crashing, or to fiddle with the code to prevent the crashes themselves, instead of paying $50.00/hour for a tech to come out and do the same thing. Because of all this, we're here, and we complain about the fact that systems are so dummied up that we can't do anything with them.
It's a common problem - and one I have with existing accounting apps, if you want a microcosm. Most accounting applications have been so "dummied down" for the masses, that they've become extremely popular. In order to deal appropriately with clients, I have to be highly proficient in the applications that they're using, and in methods for extracting data from them. However, as an accountant, it goes against the grain for me to sit there and fill in check-like forms and just *trust* that the money I'm handling is being put in the proper accounts. I want to *see* that what's happening is being done correctly. And yet, so many of these programs take a lot of time, effort and research in order to track what's going where.
Essentially, it's the reason why so many people come to Linux - I believe. In order to have greater power and flexibility, you can't really have someone doing everything for you. And a lot of current programs, written for the masses and not the technologically savvy, are made to "do everything" for the end-user.
Whew! That wasn't meant to be a rant, but it sure turned out long anyways! Sorry!
Crud.. I apologize people. All my posts are coming out mixed up. I've been trying to separate off the quoted parts by bolding them, then mixing my comments in with the pertinent areas. I did it right on my first few posts to this board, but suddenly I'm not.
Please be patient as you pick through my responses, ugh! Sorry!
Thanks Bruno, I'll keep an eye out. Hopefully something will come up. And yes, I am pulling my hair out. I can't get the harddrive to partition itself properly, and I'm not sure I want to go through the heartache of partitioning it *after* installing windows again.
Add to that the fact that so far I haven't been able to get windows installed because of a bad disk image, and you'll see the conundrum! If I could figure out how to fix the harddrive so that I could access all of it again, I might just be tempted to make this box an all-linux machine. That and if I could find the accounting software I mentioned earlier. *sigh*
I would advise you, if you are feeling brave, to download Active@Killdisk, a little DOS utility, and use it to complete wipe your hard drive. Then, repartition using fdisk, do a DOS format on each partition you create, then reload XP and then Linux. That is how I set up mine. If I was only using DOS and/or Windoze and had to do some resizing, I might consider Partition Magic. But, to get around the prob you are having, I would say you need to wipe your drive and make a clean start.
I would advise you, if you are feeling brave, to download Active@Killdisk, a little DOS utility, and use it to complete wipe your hard drive. Then, repartition using fdisk, do a DOS format on each partition you create, then reload XP and then Linux. That is how I set up mine. If I was only using DOS and/or Windoze and had to do some resizing, I might consider Partition Magic. But, to get around the prob you are having, I would say you need to wipe your drive and make a clean start.
Okay, I have a couple of questions, mostly because your idea seems so good. First, if I repartition the harddrive, will Windows XP allow me to *choose* which partition to install to? And second, will this work for a recovery disk, which is all I have at the moment? Can I use a recovery disk/restore disk (I got the restore disk, yay!) to install the image on any drive and specifically tell it where to put XP? (Yeah.. I know.. it sounds too much like I'm telling my computer "where to put XP" lol! I sort of feel that way too.)
Originally posted by Sadie Newlinux You're certainly right about this, although I'm not so sure the computer companies are "letting" them do anything. Look at this way: the computer companies are in a tight spot. Most people nowadays *do* want "instant gratification". Which is, I believe, one of the major reasons we don't see *more* people migrating to Linux boxes - linux takes a *lot* of time to learn, setup, etc.! So.. the computer companies know this. Many of them offer the option to purchase a system with no software - look at Best Buy, for instance. However, most people don't want to be bothered with having to purchase the software and then load it themselves.
The computer companies don't want to pay $250.00/copy to Microsoft for every copy of the OS they need to put on a machine. Even if they got a deal for buying in bulk and only paid $100.00/copy - if they sold 1000 machines that's still $100,000! And they'd have to recover the $100 they spent to provide the software *and* load it, by charging the consumer say.. double that. So now, computer prices go up by $200.00 - easily. Really, when given the choice between a Windows XP system, with everything fully loaded for $1000 and one with everything loaded for $1200, which one are you going to choose? For most people, it's a no brainer because they don't think about the ramifactions of getting the full version software as part of the deal.
Also, if the companies don't have to pay the exhorbitant licensing fees, they also don't have to pay to have CD copies printed, or for them to be distributed with their boxes. This makes it easier, and less expensive to ship systems to stores.
All this, works in favor of the consuer, in terms that it allows the computer manufacturers to keep prices low. It does *not* work in favor of people who are technically savvy at all, though. Because most of the people found *here* wanted more. They wanted the ability to control what was on their systems, to remove unused applications, to make their desktops look nicer and brighter, to reconfigure their menus, to install non-proprietory apps without crashing, or to fiddle with the code to prevent the crashes themselves, instead of paying $50.00/hour for a tech to come out and do the same thing. Because of all this, we're here, and we complain about the fact that systems are so dummied up that we can't do anything with them.
It's a common problem - and one I have with existing accounting apps, if you want a microcosm. Most accounting applications have been so "dummied down" for the masses, that they've become extremely popular. In order to deal appropriately with clients, I have to be highly proficient in the applications that they're using, and in methods for extracting data from them. However, as an accountant, it goes against the grain for me to sit there and fill in check-like forms and just *trust* that the money I'm handling is being put in the proper accounts. I want to *see* that what's happening is being done correctly. And yet, so many of these programs take a lot of time, effort and research in order to track what's going where.
Essentially, it's the reason why so many people come to Linux - I believe. In order to have greater power and flexibility, you can't really have someone doing everything for you. And a lot of current programs, written for the masses and not the technologically savvy, are made to "do everything" for the end-user.
Whew! That wasn't meant to be a rant, but it sure turned out long anyways! Sorry!
Well, if the OEM guys want an inexpensive OS to preload to bring down the cost of the overall hardware/software package, there's Linux. But probably most companies are reluctant to do that because right *now* Linux is a minority desktop player and it would take some time to sell computers as successfully as with Windows - so the makers would need to do both - and MS screws them. Do Linux? No MS for you. So the makers would go out of business in the short term before they (and we) could reap the long term rewards of loading Linux. Though some are starting to do it anyway. Outside players like WalMart and big pissed off companies like IBM which still carry weight and probably have no warm fuzzy feelings for MS. And even HP/Compaq is dabbling in it. *lol*
And stuff like winmodems and AOL/Compuserve - this collaboration between companies to needlessly degrade hardware and needlessly produce software. I was on Compuserve with a winmodem awhile ago with stupid software to run CS and stupid software to compensate for my damaged 'modem' - and there again - AOL is afraid to put Mozilla in rather than IE, though they try to sneak a version in CS - because MS will take them off the desktop bundle. All I gotta say on that is I'm a *lot* happier with BellSouth and my external Hayes. (Even if the Hayes does want to overheat.)
And I don't know that these 'savings' are really being passed on to the consumer - computers are incredibly cheap compared to what they were but I'm not sure that they couldn't be still cheaper given current technology.
Hope I don't sound like I'm yelling at you. I see a lot of what you're saying - just venting at MS and wimpy OEMs.
A lot of this talk about Linux 'beating' Microsoft and becoming 'dominant' - I don't think that's the point. There are actually several points but one of the main ones is simply to break MS's monopoly and coercive power. Most people can still use Windows and MS can still rake in the billions - as long as hardware's hardware and people have a choice.
As far as why use Linux - I like the CLI-orientation (though I don't mind a GUI either - in its proper place) and the greater versatility, power, and stability of it and the fact that it's a lot of hackers hacking - and, yeah, definitely about trying to gain control of the machine. I like being able to fire up a text editor and go editing. I like lots of messages and logs. "MS Foo has encountered an inconvenience and needs to close. Send all your private information to us and conceivably we might work the problem out in a future release for the modest sum of 300 additional dollars and we promise not to introduce more than two new bugs for every old one we fix." No, I'll take Linux, thanks.
Sorry though - this isn't helping with the fdisk situation. Good luck. - Oh, and I'm pretty sure the recovery disks will reformat your whole hard drive into a single partition again.
Originally posted by digiot Well, if the OEM guys want an inexpensive OS to preload to bring down the cost of the overall hardware/software package, there's Linux. But probably most companies are reluctant to do that because right *now* Linux is a minority desktop player and it would take some time to sell computers as successfully as with Windows - so the makers would need to do both - and MS screws them. Do Linux? No MS for you. So the makers would go out of business in the short term before they (and we) could reap the long term rewards of loading Linux. Though some are starting to do it anyway. Outside players like WalMart and big pissed off companies like IBM which still carry weight and probably have no warm fuzzy feelings for MS. And even HP/Compaq is dabbling in it. *lol*
There's also alienware. They make a good system, according to my mother-in-law, who just bought one of their laptops. *And* they gave her the option of choosing Linux. If I'm not mistaken, she said she got hers at Best Buy.
And stuff like winmodems and AOL/Compuserve - this collaboration between companies to needlessly degrade hardware and needlessly produce software. I was on Compuserve with a winmodem awhile ago with stupid software to run CS and stupid software to compensate for my damaged 'modem' - and there again - AOL is afraid to put Mozilla in rather than IE, though they try to sneak a version in CS - because MS will take them off the desktop bundle. All I gotta say on that is I'm a *lot* happier with BellSouth and my external Hayes. (Even if the Hayes does want to overheat.)
I won't *even* go on my rant about BellSouth and how they stole my money and gave me crappy service, it has no place here. Let's just say I *LOVE* RoadRunner!
And I don't know that these 'savings' are really being passed on to the consumer - computers are incredibly cheap compared to what they were but I'm not sure that they couldn't be still cheaper given current technology.
I'm equally sure. I don't claim to know all of the possible reasons why the market has the prices it carries. I know *something* about economics, as it was a prerequisite for my degree, but I am no means an expert.
Hope I don't sound like I'm yelling at you. I see a lot of what you're saying - just venting at MS and wimpy OEMs.
You don't. You're perfectly fine, and establishing some interesting points which I hadn't thought about.
A lot of this talk about Linux 'beating' Microsoft and becoming 'dominant' - I don't think that's the point. There are actually several points but one of the main ones is simply to break MS's monopoly and coercive power. Most people can still use Windows and MS can still rake in the billions - as long as hardware's hardware and people have a choice.
As far as why use Linux - I like the CLI-orientation (though I don't mind a GUI either - in its proper place) and the greater versatility, power, and stability of it and the fact that it's a lot of hackers hacking - and, yeah, definitely about trying to gain control of the machine. I like being able to fire up a text editor and go editing. I like lots of messages and logs. "MS Foo has encountered an inconvenience and needs to close. Send all your private information to us and conceivably we might work the problem out in a future release for the modest sum of 300 additional dollars and we promise not to introduce more than two new bugs for every old one we fix." No, I'll take Linux, thanks.
Which is essentially how I feel. I hate the fact that they can do less and get more for it. It just seems so.. slimy.. to me. The whole Linux community is built around the opposite: more for less.
Sorry though - this isn't helping with the fdisk situation. Good luck. - Oh, and I'm pretty sure the recovery disks will reformat your whole hard drive into a single partition again.
Yeah, I'm afraid of that. But a girl's gotta try, right? I'll figure out something, although in two hours you may hear me back on here going "Okay, I now have Windows and no Linux, help! How do I repartition this thing for Linux without the same thing happening again??!" lol
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
Linux, Windows XP and FDISK!
That will change someday though...
Bruno
