> In my case, I started out (several years back) using LILO to dual-boot > DOS or Linux. But, I actually have found now that the Loadlin option > not only is more convenient for Win-95, but actually makes more sense > on a PC. The only problem is that Loadlin has some memory > limitations. But, if you use the Menu-config.sys thing with DOS, then > booting bare with the Loadlin option works great.
"More sense on a PC" ? Duh ! Maybe for a "Win95" user. Anyhow, the problems with "I've installed Micro$oft Windoze 95 on my computer and can't boot Linux anymore" is just due to the fact that M$ just assumes that anyone use their piece of crap and just baldly recreates the MBR. And LILO is not less safe than LOADLIN. It can causes problem if you configure it badly. And LOADLIN can have problem if the DOS/WIN drives are defragmented. (Not starting a col.advocacy thread) Phil.
