FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-11-2012, 07:58 AM
Rodrigo Rivas
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Curtis Shimamoto <
sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com> wrote:

> The link I provided clearly shows you how to install to the mbr of a
> partition.
>

As Bjoern Franke pointed out previously in this thread, there is no such
thing as "the MBR of a partition". MBRs are only at the beginning of
devices, not partitions. The guide you linked explains how to install grub
to "the boot sector of a partition".

It may seem like nit-picking, but I think that precision in this kind of
issues is important, because a confused user could very well wipe out all
his data...

--
Rodrigo
 
Old 09-11-2012, 12:26 PM
"Stephen E. Baker"
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote:

According to Thomas Bächler:

Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might
disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install
GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.



Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has
a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot
loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you
are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced
to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine
I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already
configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without
modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be
able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for
my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me
for syslinux.

~Kyle
Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that
said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's
much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install.
 
Old 09-11-2012, 12:39 PM
Ralf Mardorf
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 08:26 -0400, Stephen E. Baker wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote:
> > According to Thomas Bächler:
> >> Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might
> >> disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install
> >> GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
> >
> >
> > Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has
> > a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot
> > loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you
> > are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced
> > to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine
> > I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already
> > configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without
> > modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be
> > able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for
> > my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me
> > for syslinux.
> > ~Kyle
> Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that
> said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's
> much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install.

I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use
grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never
used any other bootloader on a PC.
I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy.

Regards,
Ralf
 
Old 09-11-2012, 03:21 PM
Curtis Shimamoto
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

On 09/11/12 at 09:58am, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Curtis Shimamoto <
> sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The link I provided clearly shows you how to install to the mbr of a
> > partition.
> >
>
> As Bjoern Franke pointed out previously in this thread, there is no such
> thing as "the MBR of a partition". MBRs are only at the beginning of
> devices, not partitions. The guide you linked explains how to install grub
> to "the boot sector of a partition".
>
> It may seem like nit-picking, but I think that precision in this kind of
> issues is important, because a confused user could very well wipe out all
> his data...
>
> --
> Rodrigo

Okay, I can agree with that. In any case, it seemed as though th OP did
not bother to really read through the page I linked to. If he/she had,
he would have seen the incredibly not recommended option to install to
the boot sector of the partition.

Unfortunately, in this case, one is made to use the --force flag to make
it work w/o grub complaining.

--
Curtis Shimamoto
sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com
 
Old 09-11-2012, 04:25 PM
Kyle
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

According to Ralf Mardorf:

I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use
grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never
used any other bootloader on a PC.
I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy.
If you are planning to keep your bootloader installation the same, and
if you don't plan to change your disk configuration or /boot filesystem,
grub legacy should meet your needs with no problems at all. You already
have what you need, it just isn't being updated in the repos.


The reasons for using syslinux or grub2 include better support for /boot
filesystems including btrfs as well as GPT and EFI support. If these or
other features don't matter to you, you can certainly continue using
grub legacy until or unless they do. Hope this helps.

~Kyle
 
Old 09-11-2012, 05:27 PM
Ralf Mardorf
 
Default amd64 systems and archlinux

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 12:25 -0400, Kyle wrote:
> According to Ralf Mardorf:
> > I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use
> > grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never
> > used any other bootloader on a PC.
> > I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy.
> If you are planning to keep your bootloader installation the same, and
> if you don't plan to change your disk configuration or /boot filesystem,
> grub legacy should meet your needs with no problems at all. You already
> have what you need, it just isn't being updated in the repos.
>
> The reasons for using syslinux or grub2 include better support for /boot
> filesystems including btrfs as well as GPT and EFI support. If these or
> other features don't matter to you, you can certainly continue using
> grub legacy until or unless they do. Hope this helps.
> ~Kyle

Thank you
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org