> From: sabell@argonet.co.uk (Stuart Bell )
> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 96 21:39:53
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>>> I'm using a 1.6Gb drive with 3.6 - no problems. Why should 2Gb or 4Gb be
>>> significant under 3.6?
>>
> He responded: 
>> This is because RISC OS 3 v. 3.6 only handles 2048 MB drives.
>> Your 1.6GB drive is therefore fully supported in v. 3.6.
> 
> This is news to me. Did Acorn really only quadruple the maximum disc size
> allowed?

I definitely need to check the original Clan posting on 3.6, but
I believe that they said that in 3.6 the limit was just increased
to 2048 MB.

They have also released a new FileCore that has removed the limit,
and that was tested by the Clan. This new FileCore is included
in the new OS that will be released with the SA-110.

>> (First of all, my name is Kjetil Thomassen. My email address is
>> composed primarily of my last name, and not the first name as is
>> more common. I am just pointing this out. We all make mistakes,
>> so I am not offended.)
> 
> Sorry about that - but you didn't sign your original posting at all, so I had
> to resort to an intelligent guess.

Well, I did in fact sign it, but you may not have noticed. At the very
end of the email I wrote:

Kjetil B.

Also, I believe that all my emails contain my full name in the From:
field.

> I wrote:
> 
>>> Sorry for the rather polemic rather than technical nature of this
>>> posting, but I wouldn't want potential users to be put off by Thomas' saga.
>>> Nor would I want the RiscBSD team to get a persecution complex!
> 
> Kjetil wrote:
> 
>> I completely agree with you, and I am sorry if my email was interpreted
>> that way. It was not my intention to put people off, nor to offend.
> 
> Had I read your posting three weeks ago, I think that it *might* have put me
> off trying! There are perhaps two classes of would-be users: Unix newbies with
> standard configurations, who need reassurance that installing RiscBSD should
> not be too difficult, and experienced Unix folk, whose more complex
> configurations may cause them real grief when trying to install RiscBSD.

I see your point, and I agree.

I need to be more careful with how I present my findings.

The fact is, though that even without my SCSI card installed, I get
the same error when trying to load the RAM disk.

> Certainly, the installation software and documentation needs work. The 1.1 CD
> ROM is so full of files, the purpose of which is not documented, so as to be
> quite daunting for the newbie. The whole CD needs re-arranging, with
> installation instructions that reflect exactly the programs and scripts.
> UnixFS needs to be explained as a sensible way of getting RiscBSD up and
> running.

I haven't seen the CD, but I believe you.

I think we all agree on this. 

> All valid points!
> 
> I hope Kjetil has more success with his installation, and that some of the guri
> around can sort out his problems.

Well, I managed to install it by reverting to 1.1 and using bsd-4197.

See a separate email.

Kjetil B.