Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:50:07PM +1100, Lachlan Patrick wrote:
> Sorry if this isn't the right forum to suggest installer
> UI improvements, but...
>
> I was just reporting one [fairly newbie] user's surprise
> that it went ahead and starting copying files without
> asking "now copy boot files to /dev/hda6? (Y/n)" or even
> letting a different destination be chosen.
The boot files go to /boot. There is no question to ask about it.
Anyone that thinks loadlin is a good solution needs to manually deal
with getting the boot files to the right place. It has always been that
way. I have never used loadlin for anything but a way to start an
installer, and I haven't used it for that for a long time. My first
linux install used LILO and that was not a problem. That was probably
13 years ago now. I trust any boot loader more than I trust anything
that comes with DOS/Windows to get my system booted.
> Also, it seemed the disk partition screen didn't have
> a "don't write changes" button, only "write changes"
> (upgrades mightn't require any partitioning).
It asks for confirmation afterwards.
> I would have thought FIPS/loadlin was an obvious,
> low risk, way to attract new users from Windows?
> But perhaps there's a good reason why FIPS or loadlin
> are not options in the installer?
Because the only OSs that use filesystems fips can do anything about
(and fips being a dos program can't run from the Debian installer) are
obsolete and no longer supported. loadlin only runs on those same OSs
too. No supported version of windows can run loadlin or fips or have
any use for either. Most likely 99% of x86 PCs run windows XP or 2000
or have no OS at all on them, in which case loadlin is not an option.
> This is my first big upgrade since 2001 (the old
> kernel didn't support all my hardware, Windows did).
> With luck all my hardware will now work in Debian.
> And if this works, I can start converting more friends
> and family to Debian.
>
> OK, I didn't know that, so I'll try the initrd parameter,
> that helps a lot.
Was there a good reason you didn't want grub?
> Oh, I'm sure it would have worked.
>
> But given the choice between "modify the MBR? (Y/n)" and
> "use a tried and trusted technique which doesn't involve
> manipulation of the boot record", call me strange, but I'd
> rather use the tried and trusted technique. I had dabbled
> with LILO previously but decided I didn't really want to
> be fiddling with the MBR if there was an alternative
> (which there was).
Given the limitations of loadlin, I would not consider it tried and
trusted. And having to start from another OS sure makes the chance if
it being a trusted method even lower. lilo and grub are trusted methods
to boot linux.
> As an upgrade scenario, I had a working system, but the
> installer didn't recognise that. On another matter,
> does the installer check what's in the MBR before
> recommending overwriting it?
And what OS was the working system? Remember debian systems are not
upgraded by the installer. The installer is for initial installs,
everything else is just done with apt-get/dpkg/dselect when it comes to
upgrades in the future. So there is no reason for the installer to go
looking for other systems other than as things to add to the boot menu.
> OK, I'm sure grub is great. I'm just saying the user
> might not want to use it, for whatever reason, e.g.
> they already have LILO installed.
If they already have lilo, and they want to have the OS that installed
it manage it, they qualify as an advanced user and get to make it work
themselves. That setup is way beyond reasonable for an installer to
deal with. So is loadlin for that matter.
> I haven't used grub, I only used LILO, but in Windows
> with loadlin, I use a working one-line batch file:
> C:\Linux\loadlin.exe C:\Linux\vmlinuz root=/dev/hda2
> I think there were a few more lines in the autoexec
> to provide the choice. It wasn't hard. If grub's that
> simple then the real difference is in whether a MBR
> needs to be modified, and what the risks/benefits are.
Where is the risk in modifying the MBR?
> Well, I agree, the user *should* be able to do this.
> I'm just reporting that when I used the installer,
> I chose to not install grub, and a second screen appeared
> saying "are you sure? grub's great, you should at least
> put it on a floppy". So I had already chosen not to use it.
Your setup is very different than normal, so unless you are an advanced
user (and far from a newbie) it is not a very realistic way to run linux
on a system.
Len Sorensen
Reply to: