[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Thomas Quinot <quinot@email.enst.fr> writes:

> Le 2000-02-02, John Goerzen écrivait :
> > The purpose of this MBR is the same as that of any MBR.
> No, John, this is untrue. No other MBR allows booting from a floppy disk.

That's irrelevant.  The purpose is the same: boot up an operating
system.  That's a feature, not the purpose.

> > Which would mean that anybody without an MBR already on their system
> > would not get a bootable machine.  Bad idea.
> Spreading misinformation only makes you less credible. As was

What misinformation?  The above statement sounds perfectly reasonable.

> mentioned extensively on this list and elsewhere, using
> Debian's alternative MBR ius perfectly optional. LILO's first stage
> loader can also be used in place of a traditional MBR.

You have not paid attention to the discussion then, as using it has
some significant drawbacks vs. what you call a "traditional" MBR.
Specifically, you cannot modify the bootup settings from a non-Linux
OS, and it will cease functioning if anthing happens to the Linux

> Common sense commands people to read documentation that exists
> and to ignore documentation that does not exist.

Then by all means, please read the documentation that exists for mbr.

> > I suggest that a far more reasonable solution, than installing no MBR,
> > is to add a mention of the MBR to the Security-HOWTO, which already
> > mentions things like padlocks and LILO.
> What is the use of installing an MBR? Just because we have one is
> no sufficient reason at all.

Because the system WILL NOT BOOT without an MBR!

Didn't we just cover this above?

Reply to: