Re: install parameters 2.6

["yazdzik" <yazdzik@nyct.net>]

Dear J,

I am honoured that you replied.

My bug report, 250051, described the inability to reboot into windows, but I
presumed, as would most newbies, it was my hardware configuration that was
somehow unusual.

The basic links describing the problem I had, and, now clearly, anyone would
have, using a 2.6 and the sarge installer creating the linux partitions,
keeping the ntfs xp partition, then trying to dual boot are described in the
following links, most of the beginning stuff being the usual diatribe -

The first, http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/, contains the prevention which I
am asking you about, to wit, can I install with the instructions hda= c,h,s,
and then presume that the older style geometry will be there for windows to
read.

The "Why" explanations are the first couple, but, as you can see, the
problem is all over the 'net.



http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2003-10/4682.html

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0311.3/1099.html



Suse seems to have a newer parted library that fixes the problem,
retrocedently:



http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/05/fhassel_windows_not_booting91.html




http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf/ezaz/ntfsresize.html


https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7959



http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1159

I had also thought of using the libranet or some other installer to create
the partitions and install into the already present partition table, but am
not sure if the boot loader would, in the end, recognise the partitions.

Naturally, it is a hard philosophical argument to make that the use of
physical geometry is a bug, as the bios reading that windows uses is the
older, and apparently, less reliable method for reading the disk. However,
since windows will not boot any other way and no matter how committed to
open source, most of us have to use windows, particularly laptop users who
travel and depend upon almost unbroken connectivity, it may remain, however
logical from a coder's point of view, less than functional for the average
user to use calls which do not allow windows to find the booting
instructions.

I lost, as did very many folks, their entire data(okay, I back up so
frequently it does not matter, but the casual user?) because they thought,
wrongly, that the entire windows install was trashed.



The reason people write to their distro lists is that the linux kernel folk
are far too remote from the real problem, which is we need to install a
working distro...

They may be right, that the lba is better than lvm or vice versa, but to
have to spend a day re-installing windows, whether because it is necessary,
or because there was not enough info, is still an inconvenience which the
distro installer can help to avoid by either finding a workaround, or at
least including the information which most people find out ex post facto,
often after having suffered real loss.

Thank you for you kind reply, and if you think the had=c,h,s, parameter will
work, please let me know.

Also, thank you for the immense amount of time and energy you devote to the
project. For us non-geeks, it is a real contribution to our lives.

Very best wishes,

Martin

"Joey Hess" <joeyh@debian.org> wrote in message
[🔎] 20040610001855.GA17470@kitenet.net">news:[🔎] 20040610001855.GA17470@kitenet.net...