Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)
Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Two seperate functions. Why are we trying to cram two seperate functions
> > into one?
>
> Good question. If we're getting very cramped (I'm sure we are :-), it might
> be time to think about splitting the two.
>From what I've been seeing, it does look like the boot disk is getting
cramped. Putting something bigger that ae on the boot disk seems
ludicrous to me, as the install doesn't need a editor for most installs
anyway.
> I can see one very big advantage
> to using the same disk for two thing though. It means that a new user, who
> has just installed debian, magically has a rescue disk, without any extra
> work. If making a rescue disk was an additional step, most newbies wouldn't
> do it.
I made them all the time, but then I'd misplace them, or reuse them later.
If I needed a rescue disk, I'd end up downloading the latest version of
tom's, and use that. But then again, as long as I stuck with stable
(Debian) releases, and followed the directions, I didn't have a broken
system. I doubt if too many newbies breaking their systems are going to
be able to fix their systems with a only boot disk.
> (It may also mean less work by the boot floppies guys. Or not - if we used
> say, Tom's Root Boot as our rescue disk, we wouldn't have to maintain all
> that stuff and could devote more time to the basic install. I've heard very
> good things about Tomsrtbt.)
It used to work for me. My latest recovey floppy is not a floppy at all,
but a bootable CD, that runs root the root fs in a ram disk, and then
links back to the CD which is a complete copy of a working debian image.
This gives me vi, emacs, X, copies of all the library files, and
anything I'd might need to repair something thats broke.
Mark
Reply to: