Really funny but true. I should thank MS for helping out with some linux-info. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/21/1937206&mode=thread&threshold=0 <P>Here's the steps according to MS to delete linux: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q247/8/04.ASP?LNG=ENG&SA=ALLKB <P>Here's <B>my</B> steps to delete linux:<BR><LI>boot with Win9x or DOS bootable-floppy.<BR><LI>type <B>fdisk /mbr</B><BR><LI>remove bootable-floppy and reboot with NT or Win2k install-CD.<P><BR> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<BR>--treatment--
MS Tells How to Delete Linux, Install NT or Win2k
- Thread starter treatment
- Start date
- Status
Heheh, that's funny. Although Treatment, ya know, your method doesn't remove the partitions. Restoring the boot sector is good, but I'd rather remove the filesyetem too so I can use that space without having to reply on Microsoft's weak in-NTSetup partition stuff. I guess either one might work.
Is there a reason why so many Slashdot articles are being "mirrored" in the Ars forum? I can understand doing it for noteworthy articles, but not for fluff like this. <P>And some of us actually visit both sites every now and then, so this cross-posting habit is just redundant and annoying.
It does not work that way treatment, as it leaves my partition for my Linux swap partition behind... and since it is a logical type of partition, Windows9x has a hard time getting rid of it.<P>On the article I really do not see what the big deal is, almost every major Linux site has info on how to get rid of Windows, so why cannot the major site for Windows have info to remove Linux?
I guess you guys are missing the point. We all know how to do stuff.<P>The point is, instead of MS-KB explaining how to use their own simple <B>fdisk</B>, they rather go on and explain irrelevant technical terms to overwhelm naive people in the beta-program about linux. That is why I only typed <B>fdisk /mbr</B> to clean the boot-sector and have NT-4 or Win2k CD-installation deal with the deletion of the non-dos linux-partitions to prepare it cleanly for NTFS or FAT filesystems. <P>I guess we should all just beat up on the actual person writing stuff for Knowledge-Base.<P>--treatment--
So, the KB article does it properly, your method does not.<P>And yet that's a reason to bash the KB article.<BR>
PeterB once again displayed his "genius":<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, the KB article does it properly, your method does not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define "properly"? My method is even <B>included in that KB itself</B>. DUHH! <P>Why even bother to use linux's fdisk when MS's own fdisk can do the same thing and in MS's own way, too? Did you even bother comprehending what the KB actually assumes of you or the reader?<P>You are such a comedy, man. hahahaha! <P><BR>--treatment--<P>--treatment--
Thank god they told me how to do this.....no I can finally get that damn Linux system off my hard drive!!!
They include fdisk /mbr as part of the solution -- to remove LILO from the MBR. But what about the bit where you have to delete the partitions? You didn't bother. Yeah, NT setup can do certain things with certain partition types, but it won't reliably delete any old partition. And common advice is to only use the fdisk-type tool that natively deals with the partitions you're creating/deleting.<P>And anyway, you can't comment because as you've claimed yourself, unless you use one OS full time, you can't comment on it.<P><BR>Besides, don't you understand why they've done it? It's called CYA. The way they detail, you aren't using any of MS's tools with non-MS stuff; that way, they don't have to support deletion of Linux partitions with MS's tools; they can say "Not our responsibility".<BR><P>[This message has been edited by PeterB (edited December 22, 1999).]
The KB even gets better upon further review. Look at this quote from that KB: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Linux operating system is <B>generally installed on</B> partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 <B>(Linux swap)</B>.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>*I* never did know that I can generally install linux-os on a <B>swap</B> partition!<P>HAHAHA!!! I can't stop laughing! HELP!!! ROFLMAO!!!<P>MS should stop giving their Marketing/PR "department" permission to write Knowledge-Base articles.<P><BR>--treatment--
Well, parts of the GNU/Linux OS are often on the swap partition. Like, whenever you've booted the machine and cause it to swap to disk.<P>And virtual memory is arguably part of the OS. I mean, if it's not part of the OS, what is it part of?<P>Though I'll admit 'or' is somewhat incorrect. 'and' might be better. Or 'and possibly'.
PeterB,<P>lol! Keep up your idiocy here. HAHAHA! You are making my day full of laughs! HAHAHAHA! You are like a clear example of a paper-MCSE. hahaha! If you don't know what MS FDISK is and what it can actually do, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere <B>near</B> an MS-based computer. HAHAHAHA!!!<P>Didn't I already mentioned that I'm an IT in charge of various OS'es installed here at my work? <P>Somebody please give PeterB a bag of clue!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OMFG! lol!<P><BR>--treatment--
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>lol! Keep up your idiocy here. HAHAHA! You are making my day full of laughs! HAHAHAHA! You are like a clear example of a paper-MCSE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, because most/all paper MCSEs have their MCSE.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hahaha! If you don't know what MS FDISK is and what it can actually do, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an MS-based computer. HAHAHAHA!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Where'd you get that idea? I know what it does, I know how to use it, I know what it can actually do. What exactly is your point? It doesn't matter if MS's FDisk can happily delete non-MS partitions. MS don't want to *support* that process. That's all. They don't want to accept any liability for what might happen. That's not the same as saying that MS FDisk can't delete non-DOS partitions, it's just saying that MS don't want to support that usage.<P>DOS FDisk has an option for non-DOS partitions, which I'll assume is reasonably reliable, but I don't recall if NT Setup has anything like that.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Didn't I already mentioned that I'm an IT in charge of various OS'es installed here at my work? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, you did, but you also said that one can only comment on OSes that one uses full time. Using various OSes and using one OS full time are mutually exclusive. You use various OSes at work? Wow. That's uh, hardly unique.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Somebody please give PeterB a bag of clue!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OMFG! lol!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In all honesty, how old are you?<P>[This message has been edited by PeterB (edited December 22, 1999).]
Treatment,<P>If someone is acting like an idiot here, it is you. You are seriously going to rant on Microsoft for having verbose documentation? And what OS do you use? Have you read half of the illiterate and inaccurate shit in the LDP?<P>I think some people are just looking for something to rip on MS for. As far as I can see, you have not scored one single point on PeterB, yet you are acting so infantile. Calm down. He is right to know that NT does not delete all partition types, and yes, a full Linux install does include a swap partition. If you don't like the semantics, that's fine, but acting this way over semantics clearly shows that you lust for blood, and will jump at any chance to bitch.
ROFL!<P>You two (Ondule and PeterB) make me fart like hell with laughing. Think first about what you just wrote and what I actually posted and my response. Only PeterB's idiocy made this thread really laughable. Now Ondule tried blabbing. <P>Yes. Blame <B>treatment</B> for posting a slashdot-article about an idiotic MS Knowledge-Base article that even certified MS people think is very stupidly written and done. <P>Oh, PeterB, I'm almost 29. What's exactly is your job, dude? <P>You are still a comedy. hahaha! <P>--treatment--
treatment:<P>The point has ceased to be the KB article, but your infantile behavior. Anyone who read the 'addicted to linux' thread knows what your modus operandi is, but you're surpassing yourself in this thread.<P>Personally, I see no reason to even attempt to argue technical points with you, because whenever you're presented with facts that contradict your prejudice, you enter "HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OMFG! lol!" mode. Fact alert, shields down, blinkers on, my opinions right or wrong.<P>If you're really 29, then I pity you. You have a long way to go as a person. (Are you of Russian descent, BTW?) If you actually administer various PC's belonging to other people, then I pity your users. There's nothing worse than an administrator who knows very little and is too full of himself to learn anything new or consider other people's opinions.
HAHAHA, OMFG, ROTFLMAO becuase I have nothing to say MUWAHAHAHA, *LOL* HAHAHA! I can't believe you, you make me laugh. HHAHAHA, so funny dude! Damn, I am laughing my ass off, LOL! HAHAHAHA, OMFG!
IMarshall,<P>Yeah. Whatever. Try to turn this into a personal thing again with me and you will fail again. You didn't even refute the KB, whereas most of us are staying on topic, at least those that read the idiotic KB. It was very funny, even Caesar thought it was funny. PeterB responded with his idiocy that even you would see it as an out-of-place response purposed for flame-baiting. PeterB deserved the responses and laughs that he got from me because he didn't even read nor realized what the KB says in the first place, but tried to defend it instead of providing a better resolution and even tried his idiotic flame-fodder against me. I found his "responses" very laughable, as anyone in their right mind would, but you're so anti-<B>treatment</B> nowadays that it clouds your reading and gives you lots of artificial issues with me.<P>Try your drivel on other naive people. You got nothing and you provide nothing, so you're worthless in any discussions with me or anyone else that knows whatever subject matter is at hand at any thread. You're all rhetoric and we all know it already. You can bait and bait and bait me again, but you're not gonna get any satisfaction. <P>So, just deal with it. <P>--treatment--
I read this on Slashdot earlier today and I fail to see why everyone is shi**ing giggles over this. There are a million how-tos for installing linux, however finding one for removal is rather difficult. I know my first time around with Linux several years back I had very little clue on how to get rid of lilo. There's nothing "amusing" about microsoft posting something like this. As for the "Why not use microsoft's fdisk?" question. Not all fdisk executables can erase non-dos partitions well. (I.E. disks from 95) On my win2k cd I can't even find fdisk to begin with. Now is this really such a big issue?
Yo do realize that your comments are just as well directed at you treatment. Funny that.
In point of fact, the Linux OS is never written to the swap space. Kernel memory is non-swappable.<P>Back to your regularly scheduled childish insult-hurling...
John: I didn't realize that; certainly in NT certain parts of the OS can be swapped to disk. Whilst the kernel can't be, much of the stuff on top of the kernel that makes up the OS is swapped to disk; I guessed that Linux would have a similar make-up.<P><BR>Zagato: Is *that* what it is. I couldn't work out why some versions of FDisk could remove non-DOS partitions and some couldn't; it's a 95 vs. 98 thing is it? That explains a few things (like when I tell people that FDisk can do it they tell me it can't View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
Well, it comes back to splitting hairs on the definition of an OS. I personally don't accept the concept of the "GNU OS" (unless we're talking about the HURD), so that eliminates a lot of the stuff that does get swapped out from being "Linux OS", IMO. Linux has more of the monolithic nature than NT does, too, so it's possible that NT will swap out stuff that's Linux won't. The Linux kernel code, which I consider to be the OS, doesn't ever get swapped out, though.<P>And I'm not sure the FDISK problems are precisely a 95/98 thing, either. I seem to recall running into some Win95 FDISKs that were capable of handling non-DOS partitions, and others that weren't. I won't swear to it, though... it's been a while since I've removed a non-DOS partition in favor of a DOS one...
IIRC, the NT kernel cannot be paged out. This is why, if you want STOP debugging, you have to have RAM+11MB--the size of the core kernel and supporting services in memory.<P>But a kernel isn't an OS, not in practical terms. The question is better looked at from the other direction, IMO: do 99.9% of Linux installations have a swap partition? Yes. Well, then, it's a feature of the "OS."<P>[This message has been edited by Caesar (edited December 22, 1999).]
Caesar: Certain core parts of the NT OS can be paged out to disk; as you're no doubt aware, there's a registry setting to prevent the swapping out of any of the OS. I think I read somewhere a list of the parts that could never, under any circumstances, be swapped out.<P>John Campbell: I'd disagree with you that it's splitting hairs; an OS is more (in the case of something like NT, a *lot* more) than a kernel. An OS has, amongst other things, a user interface. A kernel, IMO/IME, does not.
Yeah, you can stop NT Executive from paging out, which runs in kernel mode, but the kernel itself isn't pageable. It would be insane to page a kernel! Haha, we're crazy.
Peter: AFAIK semi-decent removal of non-dos partitions (semi because it still doesn't work 100% of the time for me, but close enough) was added to fdisk somewhere in between 95 OSR2 and 98. This is by no means a "technical" statement from me, simply one based on my experience View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
using win98's fdisk (first edition) and a dos 6.22 boot disk's fdisk i was unable to remove my linux swap partition when i dumped linux a few months ago... i had to start up the linux install and kill it with disk druid (fdisk couldnt do anything with it)<P>now ive dumped non-dos partitions with fdisk many a time on many different systems ... but neither me nor several friends of mine have been able to dump a linux swap with ms's fdisk ....<P>ok im tired so forgive if this isnt very relevent to the situation
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>IMO: do 99.9% of Linux installations have a swap partition? Yes. Well, then, it's a feature of the "OS."<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I've got one that doesn't. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's a diskless workstation. Swapping over the network is too slow to be useful, and its 8M of physical RAM is sufficient for what it does (plays dumb terminal, mostly), so I just didn't bother.<P>As for what constitutes an OS... well, I think that it's kernel-space stuff only, but there are other things you could lump in with it and not get too big an argument from me. The UI is not one of those, however. That's largely an attitude shaped by living in the Unix world... in the traditional DOS/Win/Mac single-user desktop PC world, it's one OS, one UI. That's not true in the Unix world, and never has been (well, not never, but not in decades, anyway). The UI on Unix systems is a completely modular thing, that has zero ties to the underlying OS layer, and can even be removed completely without affecting the machine's suitability for certain tasks.<P>I'm not talking about just the X/command-line separation, either, where you can peel off the entire graphics subsystem and throw it away if you don't have a use for it, or the various different X window managers that all provide completely different UIs. Even at the lowest level, the command line, there are multiple UIs that can be interchanged, exchanged, or removed without affecting the machine's capabilities.<P>I've got a Linux machine here that hosts several user accounts. Most of the users use bash for their login shell, but there's one who (used to) use tcsh. Is she using a different OS when she logs in with tcsh than I am when I log in with bash? I think not...<P>If I nuke tcsh now that there's no one using it, have I changed the OS? Again, I think not. I've just removed one of the many programs on the machine that users can use to run other programs. These include not only programs that are normally considered to be shells, but also things like lynx and emacs, both of which I've seen used for login shells...<P>Some sort of UI is necessary to make an OS generally useful, but it's not part of the OS. It's a program that allows users to easily communicate with the OS. And that's what all programs do, really... and you can use just about anything as the UI in Unix. Using it that way doesn't instantly make it part of the OS, however.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for what constitutes an OS... well, I think that it's kernel-space stuff only,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, that's more than just the kernel, isn't it? Like, much of NT is kernel-space, but not kernel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but there are other things you could lump in with it and not get too big an argument from me. The UI is not one of those, however. That's largely an attitude shaped by living in the Unix world... in the traditional DOS/Win/Mac single-user desktop PC world, it's one OS, one UI. That's not true in the Unix world, and never has been (well, not never, but not in decades, anyway). The UI on Unix systems is a completely modular thing, that has zero ties to the underlying OS layer, and can even be removed completely without affecting the machine's suitability for certain tasks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But can it? Once you've got a machine set up and running, then there's no need to have a user interface, but in the meantime, how do you interact with the machine? You can't interact with the kernel directly (IME), you need some layer between the user and the kernel. It might be, say, a web server; an interface between the network driver talking raw IP, and a user talking HTTP (often with an enabler, such as a browser). It might be a terminal capability; either a telnetd, or local video and keyboard capabilities. It might be removed once the machine is set up. But I'd argue that three has to be a user interface, of some description, that sits above the kernel -- and it's that what makes up an OS.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not talking about just the X/command-line separation, either, where you can peel off the entire graphics subsystem and throw it away if you don't have a use for it, or the various different X window managers that all provide completely different UIs. Even at the lowest level, the command line, there are multiple UIs that can be interchanged, exchanged, or removed without affecting the machine's capabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They do change the machine's capabilities, though. Remove the shells (which just provide a UI), remove the graphical subsystem (which provides both an API and a UI), remove the servers (web, ftp, whatever) (which again provide an API and/or a UI), and what have you got? A kernel, that can't do a whole lot.<P>The command line isn't the lowest level; the kernel is the lowest level. It needs a layer on top of that (command line, server-type tools, GUI) in order to do anything. It is that layer, whatever form it may take, that is (along with the kernel) an 'OS'.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've got a Linux machine here that hosts several user accounts. Most of the users use bash for their login shell, but there's one who (used to) use tcsh. Is she using a different OS when she logs in with tcsh than I am when I log in with bash? I think not...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not a different OS, but a different consituent of the OS.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I nuke tcsh now that there's no one using it, have I changed the OS? Again, I think not. I've just removed one of the many programs on the machine that users can use to run other programs. These include not only programs that are normally considered to be shells, but also things like lynx and emacs, both of which I've seen used for login shells...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or Pine, as our school used. But I'd still say that they are -- when used in that way -- OS components. There's flexibility; just as pine can be used as a login shell, you could use Winword in Windows, and that makes them core UI tools; they *become* the user interface.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some sort of UI is necessary to make an OS generally useful, but it's not part of the OS. It's a program that allows users to easily communicate with the OS. And that's what all programs do, really... and you can use just about anything as the UI in Unix. Using it that way doesn't instantly make it part of the OS, however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The OS allows communication with the kernel and the user, IMO. Either as a means of starting programs (like a shell, for instance) or as a program in its own right (like using Pine or winword).<P>A user cannot (in any practical sense) communicate with a kernel. Router tasks (for instance) are kernel --> kernel communications, not user --> kernel. The OS is a higher level than that. It might be human readable (HTTP server, CLI, Pine, Winword), it might not (SMB/Samba, DirectX), but it provides another layer.<P>I guess it needn't be a human UI; it can be an API; I guess an interface of some description that's not provided by the kernel, that permits something other than kernel to kernel communication. Typically, this is (in part) a user interface, and typically it's some kind of networking (at a higher level of abstraction than raw network packets or (say) TCP/IP).<P><BR>To be honest, though, I'm knackered, and can barely think. The bastards at work made me go in at 1100 instead of my customary 1300.
PeterB: I think the point that he was trying to make is that in the unix/linux world, you don't *have* to have a UI, or the same UI, for a unix machine to carry out certain functionality. If the machine is automated, it initially may need a UI to be setup, but once it's setup it just goes along doing whatever it needs to do. You can even remove getty and still have it launching all it's background processes on startup. Now, you could claim that if it's serving webpages, the web server is it's new user interface. On the same notion, if it's doing data processing, you could claim that by taking in data and sending out data, there is an interface there. But again, a web server, a database, etc etc are all programs that are run ontop of the OS. Just like "rm" "ls" "cat" etc, are all programs that are run by the user. So is bash, and tcsh for that matter. None of this is needed for the system to operate. You could remove all of those basic commands, getty, bash/tcsh, and replace them with xdm and an X based file manager, and it would still be linux, even though your user interface just completely changed. Most people would wonder what kind of screwed up distribution of linux wouldn't include ls and getty, but it still could be called "linux" simply because it uses the linux kernel. In the same way, you could have all the exact same programs on GNU/Hurd, the same interface, and everything down to the same manpages. It wouldn't be linux though, it would be GNU/Hurd.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I read this on Slashdot earlier today and I fail to see why everyone is shi**ing giggles over this. There are a million how-tos for installing linux, however finding one for removal is rather difficult. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Absolutely... I have installed Linux just for the heck of it a number of times (different distros), and within a couple of days of playing with them, wanted to uninstall them... You can't imagine the fit LILO gave me the first time I tried to uninstall Redhat - it took a good two hours of online research to figure out how to remove LILO.
I noticed that treatment is suddenly very quiet. I'm 28 and I'm hoping that treatment is really just some 13 year old (not that all teens act like him, so please don't take offense to this statement) and not really in charge of anything other than his own computer. If I acted like him on my job I think I'd be out the door rather quickly.<P>Let's see,<BR>Someone comes in and tells me that their computer isn't working properly and I find that it's some simple setting that that got screwed up and all of the sudden I go,"OMFG, how stupid are you? Excuse me while I go in the back, drop to the ground and ROTFLMAO!!"<BR>Yeah, I'm fired now.
Dam,<P>Actually, I took a work-vacation and was out of town. Totally away from computers and shit. <P>I thought this thread already died. I already proved my point/s in this thread. <P>But thanks for thinking of me. I'm back. hehehe!<P><BR>--treatment--
Oh, this thread is back from the dead. I lost track of it while I was out of town at Christmastime...<P>Yes, Nite_Hawk, that was my point exactly...
Petty rivalries between treatment and PeterB aside, I still don't understand what is so humorous about this knowledge base article? Is it the few inaccuracies or the fact that someone would want to replace Linux with Windows NT? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe NT boot disks have fdisk on them, so treatment your method won't work.
I did, but the knowledge base article is about replacing Linux with NT or 2000, a user would not have a dos or 9x boot disk in that scenario View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
Zagato: That can't be right, because it contradicts treatment, and whenever treatment bashes MS he/she/it's always right. Everyone else is just posing.<P>It doesn't matter that treatment's own instructions don't work; MS is wrong -- always.
Zagato,<P>You just stated exactly the point of idiocy in the KB. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<P>Would it be too much from MS to just state that a DOS/Win9x boot-floppy with FDISK.EXE is required and that most, if not all, beta-testers have easy access to a nearby Win9x computer? <P>The KB is basically an insult to all the MS beta-testers' collective knowledge of MS operating-systems preparations. The procedure only needs about 3-5 exact steps, depending on how anal the user is. <P>There's no need to re-invent the wheel; in this case, regurgitating what linux-users already know about linux partitions and stuff on their own computers. Afterall, most linux-users install linux on their <B>own</B>, and by extension or attrition, are more prepared than your average consumer.<P>MS shouldn't hire lawyers and marketing/PR people to write KB.<P><BR>--treatment--
- Status