Re: [Unattended] Linux boot rather than DOS?

[Patrick J. L. <pa...@us...>]

"Jason Brady" <ja...@ri...> writes:

> Pat,
> 
> The only problem I see with this is the amount of software required
> for each approach. I think approach 2 would be the more preferred
> way since it requires a basic Linux configuration plus one app. This
> could easily fit on a floppy. Approach 3 requires Xwindows as well
> as Wine. It would require more than 1 floppy or a CD.

Most of the software will still live on a network share, just like
now.  The boot floppy will hold just enough to get the Linux kernel
and network drivers loaded and the SMB share mounted.  Stuff like
dosemu and Perl (and possibly X11) would live on the network share.

Granted, X itself is a nightmare to configure.  But since we do not
expect to interact with winnt32.exe, we could presumably use Xvfb for
our X server.

Hm.  I wonder how much RAM this would need...

 - Pat