|
Home > Archive > Red Hat Installation > September 2005 > Help with instalation of the Fedora.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Help with instalation of the Fedora.
|
|
|
| I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
and successfully burned them on to four CD's. The directory structure on
the CD's is similar to this one
\SRPMS
..discinfo
eula.txt
gpl
README
RPM-GPG-KEY
RPM-GPG-KEY-beta
RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora etc..
How do I install from this format I'm a windows person and this is my first
contact with Linux.
Please help :-)
| |
| Jan Gerrit Kootstra 2005-09-08, 5:54 pm |
| Lion wrote:
> I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
>
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
>
> and successfully burned them on to four CD's. The directory structure on
> the CD's is similar to this one
>
>
> \SRPMS
> .discinfo
> eula.txt
> gpl
> README
> RPM-GPG-KEY
> RPM-GPG-KEY-beta
> RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora etc..
>
>
> How do I install from this format I'm a windows person and this is my first
> contact with Linux.
>
>
>
> Please help :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lion,
Just like a windows installation. Put CD1 in your CD drive and reboot
the PC.
The rest is just click, click, click ... like Windows installer.
Ok, you need to make a choice between Personal Desktop or another
installation type.
Kind regards,
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
| |
| gnubie 2005-09-08, 5:54 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:18:45 +0200, Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Lion wrote:
It appears that you have downloaded the source cds.
You will need the binaries to do an install.
disc1 thur disc4.
gnubie
| |
| Olivier 2005-09-08, 5:54 pm |
| Lion wrote:
> I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
>
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
>
> and successfully burned them on to four CD's. The directory structure on
> the CD's is similar to this one
>
>
>
> How do I install from this format I'm a windows person and this is my first
> contact with Linux.
>
You have to boot from the first CD.
Probably you should have a minimum look at the installation procedure on
fedora site.
| |
|
| Lion wrote:
> I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
>
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
>
CD 1 should be bootable.
Also , when you burn it, you need a burner software
that burns a bootable Linux CD: Deep Burner is what I use.
XP MicroShit Media crap hasn't worked for me in the past.
At one time, there was Fedora Boot ISO CD too.
Check the web ite www.redhat.com/fedora for sure.
I started withe core 1, and updated using NFS to core 3.
Install everything ( takes ~6g) then your never have to change it.
| |
| Jan Gerrit Kootstra 2005-09-09, 2:49 am |
| Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:
> Lion wrote:
>
> Lion,
>
>
> Just like a windows installation. Put CD1 in your CD drive and reboot
> the PC.
>
> The rest is just click, click, click ... like Windows installer.
>
> Ok, you need to make a choice between Personal Desktop or another
> installation type.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Jan Gerrit Kootstra
Lion,
Correction, like gnubie says you need the binary file iso's:
FC4-i386-disc1.iso
FC4-i386-disc2.iso
FC4-i386-disc3.iso
FC4-i386-disc4.iso
Not the SRPMS iso's:
Then it will become click, click, click ... instead of "help what is this?"
On some mirror sites you can also find a DVD iso image, if you would
have a DVD burner. Saves you the waiting time to change the CD's.
Kind regards,
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
| |
| Enkidu 2005-09-09, 7:50 am |
| Lion wrote:
> I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
>
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
>
Aren't those the source RPMs? I think that you will need the
FC4-i386-discN.iso.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
| |
|
| Enkidu wrote:
> L
> Aren't those the source RPMs? I think that you will need the
> FC4-i386-discN.iso.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
Good cacth !
Get these:
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
If you plan to burn CDs, to download the CD images:
For x86-compatible (32-bit):
FC4-i386-disc1.iso (sha1sum: 3fb2924c8fb8098dbc8260f69824e9c437d28c68
)
FC4-i386-disc2.iso (sha1sum: 31fdc2d7a1f1709aa02c9ea5854015645bd69504
)
FC4-i386-disc3.iso (sha1sum: 032455cdf457179916be3a739ca16add75b768b7
)
FC4-i386-disc4.iso (sha1sum: f560f26a32820143e8286afb188f7c36d905a735
)
Then get :
DeepBurner - Powerful CD and DVD burning package
DeepBurner is an advanced and extremely powerful CD and DVD burning package.
It removes the hassle of making CDs, DVDs, and autoruns. ...
www.deepburner.com/ - 13k - Sep 7, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
| |
|
| Thanks everybody, great response I will download the right packages first.
"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:432157e9$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Lion wrote:
> Aren't those the source RPMs? I think that you will need the
> FC4-i386-discN.iso.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> --
>
> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
| |
|
| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:24:48 +0000, Lion wrote:
>
> How do I install from this format I'm a windows person and this is my first
> contact with Linux.
Hi. If this is your first contact with Linux then you might be kinda
unhappy with Fedora. For several reasons[1].
Consider trying a slightly easier and friendlier Linux. I personally
recommend MEPIS. I also recommend KDE over Gnome but that is mostly just
preference -- a good working install of either is probably fine for any
Linux newbie.
Oh, and to ramble on more, as a newb you probably don't understand some
fundamental differences between Windows and Linux like the one I just
mentioned, albeit obliquely. (The separation of the desktop layer from the
core OS). There are a *lot* of ways that Linux is different from Windows
and, frankly, a *lot* of ways they are the same (or similar). But
fundamentally, Linux is quite different from Windows, and a very common
mistake made by Linuxs newbs is that they want Linux to be exactly like
Windows, find out that it isn't, get frustrated, and give up. To quote
Yoda, you must unlearn what you've learned.
Don't get frustrated. Linux is way better than windows. Really. This is
not just opinion, it is proven fact. Just get in there and learn it and
you will se why.
Allrighty, that's enough rambling for now. Later!
[1] Reasons? Mulitimedia support. Macromedia flash player. Acroread. Java
support. All those commercially licensed things that any decent working
Linux install needs to be really functional in today's terms. Plus you
will get frsutrated as a new user by Fedora's (many) bugs. I really don't
think Fedora is a good OS for a complete novice to Linux.
--
JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
| |
|
| Ok pint taken,
Can I run a web server on MEPIS.
And what is Gnome or KDE, I'm sorry about stupid questions.
Where can I download MEPIS from and which version.
Thanks for your help man.
"JDS" <jeffrey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.09.16.07.02.590385@example.invalid...
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:24:48 +0000, Lion wrote:
>
>
> Hi. If this is your first contact with Linux then you might be kinda
> unhappy with Fedora. For several reasons[1].
>
> Consider trying a slightly easier and friendlier Linux. I personally
> recommend MEPIS. I also recommend KDE over Gnome but that is mostly just
> preference -- a good working install of either is probably fine for any
> Linux newbie.
>
> Oh, and to ramble on more, as a newb you probably don't understand some
> fundamental differences between Windows and Linux like the one I just
> mentioned, albeit obliquely. (The separation of the desktop layer from the
> core OS). There are a *lot* of ways that Linux is different from Windows
> and, frankly, a *lot* of ways they are the same (or similar). But
> fundamentally, Linux is quite different from Windows, and a very common
> mistake made by Linuxs newbs is that they want Linux to be exactly like
> Windows, find out that it isn't, get frustrated, and give up. To quote
> Yoda, you must unlearn what you've learned.
>
> Don't get frustrated. Linux is way better than windows. Really. This is
> not just opinion, it is proven fact. Just get in there and learn it and
> you will se why.
>
>
> Allrighty, that's enough rambling for now. Later!
>
>
>
> [1] Reasons? Mulitimedia support. Macromedia flash player. Acroread. Java
> support. All those commercially licensed things that any decent working
> Linux install needs to be really functional in today's terms. Plus you
> will get frsutrated as a new user by Fedora's (many) bugs. I really don't
> think Fedora is a good OS for a complete novice to Linux.
>
> --
> JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
> | http://www.newtnotes.com
> DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
>
| |
|
|
"Lion" <Lion@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4e0Ue.11186$fb.9498@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I have downloaded Redhat Fedora following iso images
>
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc1.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc2.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc3.iso
> FC4-i386-SRPMS-disc4.iso
>
> and successfully burned them on to four CD's. The directory structure on
> the CD's is similar to this one
>
>
> \SRPMS
> .discinfo
> eula.txt
> gpl
> README
> RPM-GPG-KEY
> RPM-GPG-KEY-beta
> RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora etc..
>
>
> How do I install from this format I'm a windows person and this is my
> first contact with Linux.
>
>
>
> Please help :-)
>
>Those are the RPM source files. You need the installation disks. That's the
>ones listed as FC4-i386-disc1.iso thru disc4.iso or FC4-x86 64-disc1.iso
>thru 4 if you are using a 64 bit processor.
| |
|
| On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:33:12 +0000, Lion wrote:
> Ok pint taken,
>
> Can I run a web server on MEPIS.
>
> And what is Gnome or KDE, I'm sorry about stupid questions.
>
> Where can I download MEPIS from and which version.
>
>
> Thanks for your help man.
Short answers:
Yes, you can run a web server. Infact, it (apache) is installed by
default.
Gnome and KDE are desktop environments. That is definitely not a stupid
question.
Download MEPIS from http://www.mepis.org. Get the latest "stable" (i.e.
not "beta") version. I think that's 3.3.1
Long answers:
MEPIS is based on Debian. As such, anything that is available for Debian
is available for MEPIS. Which pretty much means any software availble for
Linux. But to clarify further, let me start closer to the beginning...
Linux is just the kernel. The bit of software that lets you, the user,
interact with the hardware. But to actually be used by you, the user, you
need other software in between you and the kernel (Linux). Linux by
itself is NOT an Operating System.
Gnome or KDE are "desktop environments" -- the graphical interface that
lets you, the user, actually *do* anything with your computer.
In MS Windows, the "desktop environment" is tightly bound[1] to the
kernel. Yes, Windows has a "kernel".
In Linux, there is no binding between the user interface (desktop
environment) and the kernel.
What this means is in Linux is that you can use a graphical environment of
your choosing, even to the point of choosing none at all. In fact, you
can have a Linux computer with no user interface whatsoever, not even a
command line, if you want. In practice this is rather rare. An example
of a computer set up like this might be a stand-alone firewall or an
embedded device...but i digress...
Linux Operating Systems are actaully called "distributions" ("distros"
for short. MEPIS, Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, and others are "packagers" of
Linux distros and the packagers can choose to put together any combination
of kernel+user interface software+other software that they wish. Over the
years, some semi-standard combinations have arisen. One can pretty much
expect, for example, that any major distributer will put out a distro
containing Gnome and/or KDE, a web server, other network servers, some
productivity tools, etc. Some more esoteric distributions, however,
contain some very specific subsets of what is available to run on the
Linux kernel, tailored to very specific purposes.
So, back to the original question which is "And what is Gnome or KDE?":
the answer is that they are graphical enviornments that let you use your
computer, much like the MS Windows graphical environment or the Mac OS
graphical environment. The thing about Linux, though, unlike Windows or
Mac, is that you can *choose*[2] what graphical environment to use.
Personally, I prefer KDE, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I think it is
more flexible, configurable, and less dumbed-down than Gnome. Some people
prefer Gnome. Other ones include XFCE, Enlightenment, Blackbox, and
Fluxbox. MEPIS comes configured with KDE by default, although other ones
are available.
So.... I hope I have helped a smidge. Sorry for the long post but I am
feeling rather verbose this morning for some reason.
[1] Maybe this is not technically true, but it is true in practice.
[2] Choice is in the top five reasons why I prefer Linux as my OS. in no
particular order, my reasons are choice, linux does not treat me like an
idot, free-ness, availability of software[2a], not supporting the Evil
Empire, good command line interpreter(s), good software development
platform, great tweakability, um, is that more than five?
[2a] A common misunderstanding about Linux is that there is little or no
software available for it. This is very very very false. VERY false.
There is a lot less *commercial* software -- you can't go into Big
Corporate Computer Store USA (or Europe) and buy software like an image
editor or sound mixer or geneology program or games for Linux -- but all
of those software categories exist for Linux. Just not in the commercial
sector.
--
JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
| |
|
| I'm gona download MEPIS tonight and I will let you know ho I get on, Thanks
for the explanation really appreciated.
The only reason so far that I got involved with Linux it for work as we have
about 100 Windows server and we pay lots of money for licensing, plus when
you look at the jobs most companies as for some experience with UNIX.
I just want to make sure that I'm on the right track in my career.
When I downloaded Fedora it came on 4 CD's and Mepis its only One.
Shortly there are more differences between MEPIS and Fedora not just the
GUI. Which is better for cooperate use like web server, file server etc????
Thanks.
"JDS" <jeffrey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.12.15.23.01.781330@example.invalid...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:33:12 +0000, Lion wrote:
>
>
> Short answers:
> Yes, you can run a web server. Infact, it (apache) is installed by
> default.
>
> Gnome and KDE are desktop environments. That is definitely not a stupid
> question.
>
> Download MEPIS from http://www.mepis.org. Get the latest "stable" (i.e.
> not "beta") version. I think that's 3.3.1
>
> Long answers:
>
> MEPIS is based on Debian. As such, anything that is available for Debian
> is available for MEPIS. Which pretty much means any software availble for
> Linux. But to clarify further, let me start closer to the beginning...
>
> Linux is just the kernel. The bit of software that lets you, the user,
> interact with the hardware. But to actually be used by you, the user, you
> need other software in between you and the kernel (Linux). Linux by
> itself is NOT an Operating System.
>
> Gnome or KDE are "desktop environments" -- the graphical interface that
> lets you, the user, actually *do* anything with your computer.
>
> In MS Windows, the "desktop environment" is tightly bound[1] to the
> kernel. Yes, Windows has a "kernel".
>
> In Linux, there is no binding between the user interface (desktop
> environment) and the kernel.
>
> What this means is in Linux is that you can use a graphical environment of
> your choosing, even to the point of choosing none at all. In fact, you
> can have a Linux computer with no user interface whatsoever, not even a
> command line, if you want. In practice this is rather rare. An example
> of a computer set up like this might be a stand-alone firewall or an
> embedded device...but i digress...
>
> Linux Operating Systems are actaully called "distributions" ("distros"
> for short. MEPIS, Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, and others are "packagers" of
> Linux distros and the packagers can choose to put together any combination
> of kernel+user interface software+other software that they wish. Over the
> years, some semi-standard combinations have arisen. One can pretty much
> expect, for example, that any major distributer will put out a distro
> containing Gnome and/or KDE, a web server, other network servers, some
> productivity tools, etc. Some more esoteric distributions, however,
> contain some very specific subsets of what is available to run on the
> Linux kernel, tailored to very specific purposes.
>
> So, back to the original question which is "And what is Gnome or KDE?":
> the answer is that they are graphical enviornments that let you use your
> computer, much like the MS Windows graphical environment or the Mac OS
> graphical environment. The thing about Linux, though, unlike Windows or
> Mac, is that you can *choose*[2] what graphical environment to use.
>
> Personally, I prefer KDE, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I think it is
> more flexible, configurable, and less dumbed-down than Gnome. Some people
> prefer Gnome. Other ones include XFCE, Enlightenment, Blackbox, and
> Fluxbox. MEPIS comes configured with KDE by default, although other ones
> are available.
>
> So.... I hope I have helped a smidge. Sorry for the long post but I am
> feeling rather verbose this morning for some reason.
>
>
>
> [1] Maybe this is not technically true, but it is true in practice.
>
> [2] Choice is in the top five reasons why I prefer Linux as my OS. in no
> particular order, my reasons are choice, linux does not treat me like an
> idot, free-ness, availability of software[2a], not supporting the Evil
> Empire, good command line interpreter(s), good software development
> platform, great tweakability, um, is that more than five?
>
> [2a] A common misunderstanding about Linux is that there is little or no
> software available for it. This is very very very false. VERY false.
> There is a lot less *commercial* software -- you can't go into Big
> Corporate Computer Store USA (or Europe) and buy software like an image
> editor or sound mixer or geneology program or games for Linux -- but all
> of those software categories exist for Linux. Just not in the commercial
> sector.
>
> --
> JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
> | http://www.newtnotes.com
> DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
>
| |
|
| On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:48:29 +0000, Lion wrote:
> Shortly there are more differences between MEPIS and Fedora not just the
> GUI. Which is better for cooperate use like web server, file server etc????
Arguably neither MEPIS nor Fedora (nor any other major distro) is "better"
for web serving, file serving, or other standard server tasks. Or as a
workstation. Both offer everything you need to do all that stuff.
"Better" is the wrong word to describe these things. The main differences
among distros are in the administrative tools and corporate support
options, as far as use in an office environment goes.
Personally, I never ever ever use paid commercial support for fixing
problems with my Linux distros.
I *do* however use paid commercial support to gain access to updating,
configuration, and maintennance tools. Red Hat, for example, has a very
nice (IMO) set of maintennance tools in their "Red Hat Network". But you
have to pay for it.
Similar tools are available for the free distros, such as Fedora.
However, the corporate world being what it is, it might be worthwhile to
pay, say, Red Hat or SuSE for their corporate-oriented Linux distros, just
to get their maintennance options. MEPIS provides commercial support as
well.
What do I mean by maintennance? I mean patches and upgrades of software on
your box. Windows provides much the same thing -- the "Windows Update"
website is very similar to the "Red Hat Network" website, at least
conceptually. (Every Windows user should be able to use Windows Update,
as every Windows user is supposed to have paid for Windows). Over the
long term, I have found it waaay easier to rely on paid maintennance from
Red Hat rather than tracking down and maintaining software packages
myself. Plus, if I die, the support is there for someone else to use.
For a smaller envrionment with limited resources (money), a free distro
will have maintennance tools that work very reliably. Fedora comes with
Yum, for example, to maintain packages, and Fedora's system tools are
excellent. MEPIS uses Apt (a Debian tool) to maintain packages. Apt is
better than Yum, IMO.
It comes down to accountability. You can pay for corporate support and
get corporate-approved accountability, or you can use free tools and lose
the accountability (or be accountable yourself). For Linux, most of the
corporate tools are based on available free tools, and I have found the
free tools to be just as good or better than the paid tools. But like I
said, you get accountability with the paid options, and not with the free
options.
later...
--
JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
| |
|
| Thanks for all the info it really means loot to me as I know nothing about
UNIX.
Got MEPIS down, will install in the morning.
Thanks again man, you really explained this stuff for me.
"JDS" <jeffrey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.12.17.43.16.74278@example.invalid...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:48:29 +0000, Lion wrote:
>
>
> Arguably neither MEPIS nor Fedora (nor any other major distro) is "better"
> for web serving, file serving, or other standard server tasks. Or as a
> workstation. Both offer everything you need to do all that stuff.
> "Better" is the wrong word to describe these things. The main differences
> among distros are in the administrative tools and corporate support
> options, as far as use in an office environment goes.
>
> Personally, I never ever ever use paid commercial support for fixing
> problems with my Linux distros.
>
> I *do* however use paid commercial support to gain access to updating,
> configuration, and maintennance tools. Red Hat, for example, has a very
> nice (IMO) set of maintennance tools in their "Red Hat Network". But you
> have to pay for it.
>
> Similar tools are available for the free distros, such as Fedora.
>
> However, the corporate world being what it is, it might be worthwhile to
> pay, say, Red Hat or SuSE for their corporate-oriented Linux distros, just
> to get their maintennance options. MEPIS provides commercial support as
> well.
>
> What do I mean by maintennance? I mean patches and upgrades of software on
> your box. Windows provides much the same thing -- the "Windows Update"
> website is very similar to the "Red Hat Network" website, at least
> conceptually. (Every Windows user should be able to use Windows Update,
> as every Windows user is supposed to have paid for Windows). Over the
> long term, I have found it waaay easier to rely on paid maintennance from
> Red Hat rather than tracking down and maintaining software packages
> myself. Plus, if I die, the support is there for someone else to use.
>
> For a smaller envrionment with limited resources (money), a free distro
> will have maintennance tools that work very reliably. Fedora comes with
> Yum, for example, to maintain packages, and Fedora's system tools are
> excellent. MEPIS uses Apt (a Debian tool) to maintain packages. Apt is
> better than Yum, IMO.
>
> It comes down to accountability. You can pay for corporate support and
> get corporate-approved accountability, or you can use free tools and lose
> the accountability (or be accountable yourself). For Linux, most of the
> corporate tools are based on available free tools, and I have found the
> free tools to be just as good or better than the paid tools. But like I
> said, you get accountability with the paid options, and not with the free
> options.
>
>
> later...
> --
> JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
> | http://www.newtnotes.com
> DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
>
| |
| Jasen Betts 2005-09-29, 6:00 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.comp.linux.xxx.]
On 2005-09-09, wb <deademail@spamme.com> wrote:
> Lion wrote:
>
> CD 1 should be bootable.
>
> Also , when you burn it, you need a burner software
> that burns a bootable Linux CD: Deep Burner is what I use.
> XP MicroShit Media crap hasn't worked for me in the past.
anything that can burn an ISO will work, if used correctly.
ISOs are so basic that not even microsoft can mess it up.
media player may not be suited to recording CD-ROMs. (I've never
tried to use it for that) nero or adaptec (etc) are and work fine.
Bye.
Jasen
| |
| Jasen Betts 2005-09-29, 6:00 pm |
| On 2005-09-09, wb <deademail@spamme.com> wrote:
> FC4-i386-disc2.iso (sha1sum: 31fdc2d7a1f1709aa02c9ea5854015645bd69504
)
> FC4-i386-disc3.iso (sha1sum: 032455cdf457179916be3a739ca16add75b768b7
)
> FC4-i386-disc4.iso (sha1sum: f560f26a32820143e8286afb188f7c36d905a735
)
>
>
> Then get :
>
> DeepBurner - Powerful CD and DVD burning package
> DeepBurner is an advanced and extremely powerful CD and DVD burning package.
> It removes the hassle of making CDs, DVDs, and autoruns. ...
>
> www.deepburner.com/ - 13k - Sep 7, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
why?
how hard is it to type
cdrecord FC4-i386-disc1.iso
especially when you have tab completion....
Bye.
Jasen
|
|
|
|
|