Goddamned programmers are incompetent!
in [Suse]
|
From: wolfgang kern on 7 Nov 2009 04:43 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz said: >> Grub seem to need the first partition on a boot-drive and wont (of >> course) be able to see my OS as a bootable partition at all. > When did that change? On this computer, grub isn't on the first partition > and it works just fine. In fact, I've never put either grub or lilo on the > first partition. I didn't mean that it must be the first entry in the partition table, but I think it must reside on the first sector of a physical drive as long no other boot-loader is involved :) >> I see your claims as a brief warning, > I would see the claim as a warning if it came from a reliable source. :) __ wolfgang
From: StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt on 7 Nov 2009 09:17 On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:43:21 +0100, "wolfgang kern" <nowhere(a)never.at> wrote: > >Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz said: > >>> Grub seem to need the first partition on a boot-drive and wont (of >>> course) be able to see my OS as a bootable partition at all. > >> When did that change? On this computer, grub isn't on the first partition >> and it works just fine. In fact, I've never put either grub or lilo on the >> first partition. > >I didn't mean that it must be the first entry in the partition table, >but I think it must reside on the first sector of a physical drive as >long no other boot-loader is involved :) > This, folks, is what is referred to as dancing.
From: Ulick Magee on 7 Nov 2009 14:50 Kevin Nathan wrote: > > You don't need to write your own bootloader, unless you just want to do > it. GRUB handles Linux and Windows just fine. Again, I don't know what > your OS is, but I imagine it's possible to make it work, too. I don't > know about Mac but, if it's the OS/X version I would assume it will be > able to handle that When I got my Macbook 2 years ago, it was recommended to use LILO rather than GRUB, IIRC GRUB at that time did not work with rEFIt (Intel Macs use EFI instead of a BIOS, rEFIt lets you choose which partition to boot and only then does the Linux bootloader run, assuming you choose to boot a Linux partition.) I think GRUB now works on Intel Macs but I've stuck with LILO because it's not broken - although since I upgraded to 11.1, LILO runs in text mode for some reason, I've never been bothered by this enough to try to get the graphical mode back. > since it's based on FreeBSD -- no experience there, > yet, so that may be inaccurate. A bootloader doesn't care what the OSes available are based on. If they were more discerning they would refuse to let you boot Windows :) -- Ulick Magee Free software and free formats for free information for free people. Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
From: Kevin Nathan on 7 Nov 2009 16:14 On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:50:04 +0000 Ulick Magee <ulickatmaildotcom(a)feckoff.invalid> wrote: >A bootloader doesn't care what the OSes available are based on. If they >were more discerning they would refuse to let you boot Windows :) > That's true, but the *OS* can be sensitive to the bootloader. When I was using XOSL, I had it booting two different versions of DOS, one version of Windows and two Linux distros. This all worked fine until I needed to install Real/32. Real/32 would not work properly without its own bootloader in the MBR. Not sure why, but I ended up copying the MBR as it would boot Real/32 and as it would boot XOSL. Then I had to setup a DOS batch file to swap the MBR based on what I wanted to boot next. That was a mess at upgrade time, so I ended up making a separate machine for the Real/32 OS... :-) -- Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA) Linux Potpourri and a.o.l.s. FAQ -- (temporarily offline) Open standards. Open source. Open minds. The command line is the front line. Linux 2.6.25.20-0.5-pae 2:09pm up 17 days 4:23, 37 users, load average: 0.09, 0.33, 0.68
From: Pi'd Piper on 7 Nov 2009 16:24
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:14:04 -0700, Kevin Nathan <knathan(a)project54.com> wrote: > Real/32 would not work properly without its >own bootloader in the MBR. Not sure why, but I ended up copying the MBR >as it would boot Real/32 and as it would boot XOSL. Then I had to setup >a DOS batch file to swap the MBR based on what I wanted to boot next. >That was a mess at upgrade time, so I ended up making a separate >machine for the Real/32 OS... :-) > Wrong fix. You go ahead and let it alter the MBR, killing XOSL during its install (real/32), then you boot the XOSL DOS disk sans memory mangers, and load the XOSL install applet again, and INSTALL it (not repair) again, which will COPY the current MBR, and then you select "previous MBR" when you set up the real/32 boot selection, and the OS will not "know". You can actually "record" or "archive" XOSL saved MBRs, uniquely name them, and essentially plug any one of them in you wish. |