Re: Loadlin and Squeeze kernel 2.6.32
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
>>> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when
>>> they're not in use?
>>
>> I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
>> because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
>> better job a third time but I'll try.
>
> Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using since
> many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is being
> "demonized" :-?
I'm demonizing them but the grub developers certainly do given the
message that you get when you install grub to a PBR/VBR.
>> The block lists are used when grub's installed in a PBR because there's
>> no space for a stage 1.5/core.img (which can read some filesystems) so
>> the next step in the boot process has to be encoded and found using the
>> blocks that it occupies on the disk.
>
> Then I have to conclude that block lists are only used when the booloader
> is installed in the first sector of a disk partition, right?
Yes, AFAIK; although there might be way to install grub to an MBR and
use block lists.
>>>> When multi-booting Linux and Windows, installing grub in the MBR *can*
>>>> be hazardous to your health and that of your box...
>>>
>>> Yes, the problem arises when windows is being reinstalled afterwards,
>>> users will then need to reinstall GRUB all over again.
>>
>> More than that. Some Windows licensing and anti-virus/malware software
>> installs stuff into the post-MBR gap so grub, on an msdos-labeled disk
>> has to fight for space there...
>
> Yet another reason for leaving untouched the MBR when using those tools.
Very true, but I think that the grub developers have found a way around that.
Reply to: