Re: Which Boot Manager?
Some justification is in its place here:
1) I multi-boot the next systems:
- DOS 6.22 / Win95 (neetly split by system commander)
- Win NT 4
- Linux (work partition)
- Linux (test partition)
- (not booting: 2x data and swap)
2) System commander has a user managment system that
allows you to setup users. You can deny users to
boot partitions and/or see data partitions.
3) It easy to setup and use.
Regards,
Onno
At 11:00 PM 2/8/00 +0000, Sean Johnson wrote:
>I don't understand why anyone using Linux would resort to 3rd party
>proprietary software to manage their boot-up. LILO will allow for as
>many different OS boots as you are able to make partitions for. If you
>have some beef with LILO, then there is always grub.
>
>Personally I've always been well served by LILO and feel it is an
>extremely useful boot up manager.
>
>Take a look at man lilo, and you'll see what I mean.
>
>Sean
>
>Onno wrote:
>>
>> I use System Commander.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Onno
>>
>> At 01:05 AM 2/5/00 +0000, Lane Lester wrote:
>> >I currently have Win 98 and NT along with Corel Linux on my system.
>> >CL's lilo lets me go with either Linux or Windows, and NT's boot
>> >manager lets me pick between 98 and NT.
>> >
>> >I just bought McCarty's _Learning Debian GUN/Linux_, and I'd like to
>> >install the Debian that came with it.
>> >
>> >Can you tell me how to manage the booting between all these guys? I
>> >installed Power Quest's Boot Magic, but after it started, my screen
>> >went black and stayed that way. I had a dickens of a time getting back
>> >to my original setup.
>> >
>> >I don't know why Boot Magic wouldn't work, although their Web site
>> >acknowledges that it can happen. I do use EZ-drive to manage the two
>> >10-gig drives in my system.
>> >
>> >So is there an approach I can use that will manage these OSes?
>> >Preferably without having to reinstall any that are already there?
>> >
>> >
>> >Lane
>> >
>> >----
>> >Lane Lester / Madison County, Georgia USA
>> >----
>> >Coming to you through Corel Linux
>> >
>
>
Reply to: