From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:22:08 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4; KDE/4.4.3; i686; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201005132122.08832.corey@bitworthy.net>
Subject: [9fans] boot errors using most recent plan9.iso
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 215dd7fc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


Attempting new plan9 installation, seeing this sort of thing going on:

bios 0: drive 0x80: 80.026,361,856 bytes, type 3
biosdiskcall: int 13 op 0x42 drive 0x80 failed, ah error 0x80
sectread: bios failed to read 512 @ sector 0 of 0x80


... searching 9fans, I see that others have had same issue, recently
and in the past:

http://www.mail-archive.com/9fans@cse.psu.edu/msg15073.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/9fans@9fans.net/msg14087.html
http://9fans.net/archive/2009/09/209

... etc.


So now I'm going to try installing using one of Erik's distros:

ftp://ftp.quanstro.net/other/plan9.iso.bz2
or
ftp://ftp.quanstro.net/other/9atom.iso.bz2

... but I'm wondering:  why does 9load seem to sometimes suffer
from apparent regressions in the official iso?

I'm reviewing a draft plan 9 installation howto I wrote a while back,
and I'm wondering whether the howto should just suggest that the
user obtain their iso from quanstro.net (9atom.iso.bz2 or plan9.iso.bz2)
rather than the iso from plan9.bell-labs.com?