Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:24:55PM +1100, Lachlan Patrick wrote: Well, the question I wanted it to ask was which partition should /boot go onto? AFAI recall that question wasn't asked. I had two other ext2 partitions, so I was just surprised that the command to format /dev/hda6 was also taken to mean that /dev/hda6 was where /boot should go. I wonder how the installer decides where to place /boot if I had formatted multiple partitions? I also wonder what it would have done if I'd chosen not to reformat /dev/hda6 as ext3 (it was an empty ext2 before)? My point is formatting/partitioning != choosing where to install. Maybe there was a screen asking that, but I don't recall one. I just remember being surprised I wasn't asked. /boot goes to whatever is mounted as /boot in the partition setup. If you have a seperate partition for /boot you tell the partition setup you want it used as /boot and it does. If you don't have a seperate one, it obviously has to go on whatever is used as / in the partition setup. As a user of Debian, but not a frequent installer of Debian, I had no way to know whether loadlin was 'good', all I knew was it worked. As far as I knew, loadlin was an officially supported and sanctioned and 'good' boot method... I was looking for it in the installer menu options. I just had no way of knowing that it was deprecated or obsolete... where is that written? Maybe I just missed it. I don't think anyone ever considered loadlin a good sactioned boot loader, just a hack for dos users to use as a way to get something loaded, often as a way to start an installer before having a proper boot loader installed. And of course a decade ago when some distributions supported installing with umsdos filesystem, loadlin was the way to boot those. Fortunately that mess has disappeared. loadlin is the only remnant left and certainly hasn't had any maintenance done on it in a while. I would not be surprised if the next time some change is required in boot loaders to support a kernel boot change, loadlin will not be updated. OK, but trust is a subjective thing. I had a working loadlin system for five years; I trusted it, it worked through several revisions of kernel 2.2. By contrast, I didn't trust LILO, having tried and failed to get it working (bear in mind I was a total Linux newbie five years ago, and I knew loadlin worked, so I switched back from LILO to loadlin when I couldn't get LILO working.) For me, if it works, why change it? I mean, I don't even know why GRUB is preferred to LILO now. I just wanted a method which boots, and I had one, so I thought, why change it? For a dos user, a dos program makes sense. And lilo can be a real pain. Grub is much nicer. Oh, I realise that now, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But I only discovered that by trying it. My perspective was odd... I had a previously installed Debian system, with a blank 2GB ext2 partition ready and waiting for a new installation, so I didn't _need_ to partition anything. The installer expected me to, though. So, only having a write changes button, when potentially nothing needed to change, seemed odd. But only from my perspective. For a new user, with an empty PC hard drive, partitioning would be necessary, and write changes would therefore be necessary. Even if you don't want to create partitions you still have to tell it which existing partition to use for what (even if you don't want to format them). The partition setup does all that. OK, I didn't know loadlin/FIPS wouldn't work with recent versions of Windows. Thanks for that info! They are dos tools. Windows 98 was the last version they work on. That is quite a long time ago. I had used that combination five years ago, and it worked fine, so until today I assumed it would still work, or was still supported, or that recent upgrades to those packages would work with recent versions of Windows. I'm a bit surprised that they've been allowed to lapse. Surely being able to install Linux and boot into it from an icon on the Windows desktop is a desirable way to convert the unwashed masses? Forcing people to start with a clean PC, or lose their existing Windows partition, seems IMHO to raise the barrier for entry. Or is it that Windows won't play fair and is putting files all over the disk to stop FIPS-like disk repartitioning? You can't do anything like that from inside any 32bit windows. You could only do that on the win98 and older because they were a 32bit shell running on top of DOS, so they could drop down to dos and run loadlin. As it turns out, the initrd parameter solved the problem, and I now have loadlin booting kernel 2.4.27. No, not much, apart from a vague unease about formatting, partitioning, or changing MBRs if I didn't need to (the disk had existing data and operating systems on it). But see below for a comment on incremental vs big changes. I'm hearing you on FM, buddy. I just
Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 05:50, Lachlan Patrick wrote: Well, the installer _has_ to install the kernel and initrd in /boot, so if you don't create a separate /boot partition it will indeed put them in the partition that holds root. Sorry if this isn't the right forum to suggest installer UI improvements, but... Yes, it is. 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. So what is different from boot files and other files? 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). The disk partitioner (partman) _always_ gives an overview of what changes are about to be made and asks for confirmation before writing changes. 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 whether it has a chance of working or not depends to much on external factors we cannot control. This is my first big upgrade since 2001 (the old kernel didn't support all my hardware, Windows did). There have been huge changes in the Linux world since 2001. You cannot expect that the same setup you chose then will still be the optimal choice now or even work at all. 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). Tried, trusted and outdated... Windows is extremely unfriendly towards other Operating systems and multi boot setups which is why programs like bootmagic were quite popular for a while. Linux is about openness and so most of their bootloaders explicitly support multi boot. Grub is very good at that. Give us some credit for the fact that we will not break your system knowingly without very strong warnings. As an upgrade scenario, I had a working system, but the installer didn't recognise that. What do you mean? It did not recognize it during partitioning? But you told the partitioner yourself to use hda6, right? We do assume you know what you are doing when repartitioning as there basically is no way to prevent anybody overwriting data at that point. We just take care to tell the user what the changes will be and ask for confirmation. On another matter, does the installer check what's in the MBR before recommending overwriting it? No, but it does check what other OSes are on the system and will show a list of the ones it detected. If you are missing anything there, that's the point where you should consider if you want to continue or not. 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. Sure, that option is offered too. As I said: just use the go back option and choose either lilo or no bootloader as alternatives for grub. 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. There is no such screen if you choose go back. You probably selected no to the question if it should be installed in the MBR, so it offered you the option of installing GRUB in an alternative location. So what is wrong with that? Choice is good; Windows does not offer you _any_ choice. Suggest you read the questions more thoroughly before replying to them. pgpaBAPQdsDap.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
Lennart Sorensen wrote: The boot files go to /boot. There is no question to ask about it. Well, the question I wanted it to ask was which partition should /boot go onto? AFAI recall that question wasn't asked. I had two other ext2 partitions, so I was just surprised that the command to format /dev/hda6 was also taken to mean that /dev/hda6 was where /boot should go. I wonder how the installer decides where to place /boot if I had formatted multiple partitions? I also wonder what it would have done if I'd chosen not to reformat /dev/hda6 as ext3 (it was an empty ext2 before)? My point is formatting/partitioning != choosing where to install. Maybe there was a screen asking that, but I don't recall one. I just remember being surprised I wasn't asked. Anyone that thinks loadlin is a good solution needs to manually deal with getting the boot files to the right place. As a user of Debian, but not a frequent installer of Debian, I had no way to know whether loadlin was 'good', all I knew was it worked. As far as I knew, loadlin was an officially supported and sanctioned and 'good' boot method... I was looking for it in the installer menu options. I just had no way of knowing that it was deprecated or obsolete... where is that written? Maybe I just missed it. I trust any boot loader more than I trust anything that comes with DOS/Windows to get my system booted. OK, but trust is a subjective thing. I had a working loadlin system for five years; I trusted it, it worked through several revisions of kernel 2.2. By contrast, I didn't trust LILO, having tried and failed to get it working (bear in mind I was a total Linux newbie five years ago, and I knew loadlin worked, so I switched back from LILO to loadlin when I couldn't get LILO working.) For me, if it works, why change it? I mean, I don't even know why GRUB is preferred to LILO now. I just wanted a method which boots, and I had one, so I thought, why change it? 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. Oh, I realise that now, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But I only discovered that by trying it. My perspective was odd... I had a previously installed Debian system, with a blank 2GB ext2 partition ready and waiting for a new installation, so I didn't _need_ to partition anything. The installer expected me to, though. So, only having a write changes button, when potentially nothing needed to change, seemed odd. But only from my perspective. For a new user, with an empty PC hard drive, partitioning would be necessary, and write changes would therefore be necessary. 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. OK, I didn't know loadlin/FIPS wouldn't work with recent versions of Windows. Thanks for that info! I had used that combination five years ago, and it worked fine, so until today I assumed it would still work, or was still supported, or that recent upgrades to those packages would work with recent versions of Windows. I'm a bit surprised that they've been allowed to lapse. Surely being able to install Linux and boot into it from an icon on the Windows desktop is a desirable way to convert the unwashed masses? Forcing people to start with a clean PC, or lose their existing Windows partition, seems IMHO to raise the barrier for entry. Or is it that Windows won't play fair and is putting files all over the disk to stop FIPS-like disk repartitioning? OK, I didn't know that, so I'll try the initrd parameter, that helps a lot. As it turns out, the initrd parameter solved the problem, and I now have loadlin booting kernel 2.4.27. Was there a good reason you didn't want grub? No, not much, apart from a vague unease about formatting, partitioning, or changing MBRs if I didn't need to (the disk had existing data and operating systems on it). But see below for a comment on incremental vs big changes. 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. I'm hearing you on FM, buddy. I just expected (I don't know why) that the installer also had an upgrade-detection capability. I don't know why, I just assumed it would. (My apt database got corrupted a few years ago,
Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
Package: Linux i386 V3.1 r1 Boot method: CD Image version: debian-31r1-i386-binary-1.iso Downloaded from: Debian mirror ftp.iinet.net.au Date: 2006-02-21 10:00 am Machine: Homebuilt Processor: Intel 800 mhz Memory: 384 meg Partitions: Disk /dev/hda: 20.2GB /dev/hda1 12.0GB fat32 Windows 98 boot partition /dev/hda2 1.0GB ext2 Linux root partition (kernel 2.2.20) /dev/hda3 0.2GB swap Swap space, currently unused /dev/hda5 5.0GB ext2 /home partition /dev/hda6 2.0GB ext2 Spare space Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot worked:[0 ] Configure network HW: [0 ] Config network: [0 ] Detect CD: [0 ] Load installer modules: [0 ] Detect hard drives: [0 ] Partition hard drives: [0 ] Create file systems:[0 ] Mount partitions: [0 ] Install base system:[0 ] NB: see below, didn't ask before copying Install boot loader:[O ] NB: see below, loadlin not an option? Reboot: [E ] NB: see below, loadlin doesn't work Comments/Problems: I'm having some difficulty installing a new version of Linux (Debian 3.1r1), and I'm sure the answer is easy but I just don't know what it is. Basically I installed Debian ISO disk 1 but it won't boot from Windows 98 using loadlin16c. My 20GB hard drive was working fine, partitioned as above. With the installer I reformatted /dev/hda6 as format ext3, then the installer automatically put the root/kernal 2.4.27 files onto that partition (without asking me, which was fine because that was what I wanted, but also annoying that it just went ahead and did that). Now /dev/hda6 is in an extended partition or some such beast, like /dev/hda5, which is why there's a gap in hda numbers (I think). Anyway, I have loadlin16c.exe installed on Windows, and I use it to boot the 2.2 kernel, which still works fine, and I can mount /dev/hda6 read-only and look at it, and it's fine, and I was able to copy the kernel 2.4.27 vmlinuz file from /dev/hda6/boot/ to the Windows partition, which was all fine. But: when loadlin launches that 2.4 kernel with root=/dev/hda6, it starts booting but then gets to a page full of text and prints kernel panic, can't boot and then just sits there. I've exactly duplicated the loadlin command used to boot the 2.2 kernel, except I changed the parameters to use the new kernel file and root filesystem. The installer did want to write GRUB to the MBR of /dev/hda1 but I wouldn't let it. Then it got upset and said I really should install GRUB somewhere, so I relented and installed it on /dev/hda6. But since I want to use loadlin, I found this insistence that it wanted to change _some_ MBR somewhere both annoying and petulant. AFAIK loadlin16c.exe should work, and should avoid me having to install GRUB or LILO, or mess with any MBR. Also AFAIK, installing GRUB on /dev/hda6's MBR shouldn't do anything bad. (Admittedly I could have put it on a floppy, but that would have requiring finding a blank floppy whilst in the midst of the installation.) NB: I didn't reformat the swap partition, and I didn't tell the installer that it could use it. I don't want a swap partition really; with 384MB RAM I'd rather not use one at all. The only thing the Partitioning step did was reformat /dev/hda6 as ext3 and then install files there; that's all I wanted that step to do. Any ideas what's wrong or how to fix it? Ta. Loki -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
On Monday 13 March 2006 23:17, Lachlan Patrick wrote: With the installer I reformatted /dev/hda6 as format ext3, then the installer automatically put the root/kernal 2.4.27 files onto that partition (without asking me, which was fine because that was what I wanted, but also annoying that it just went ahead and did that). Well, the installer _has_ to install the kernel and initrd in /boot, so if you don't create a separate /boot partition it will indeed put them in the partition that holds root. But: when loadlin launches that 2.4 kernel with root=/dev/hda6, it starts booting but then gets to a page full of text and prints kernel panic, can't boot and then just sits there. I've exactly duplicated the loadlin command used to boot the 2.2 kernel, except I changed the parameters to use the new kernel file and root filesystem. The world has moved on and it seems you haven't (or at least, not yet). Both the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are modular and thus require an initrd in order to boot. It seems to me you forgot to tell loadlin about loading the initrd and it is a known issue that older versions of loadlin don't handle (larger) initrds. The installer did want to write GRUB to the MBR of /dev/hda1 but I wouldn't let it. Why not? The installer should recognize both your Windows installation and your current Linux installation (unless you've done very weird things to it, like removing the kernel from /boot). It should provide grub menu lines that allow you to boot Windows and your old linux install. Even if it does not, it's a hell of a lot easier to tell grub how to boot Windows than to tell Windows how to boot linux... We've put a lot of effort into dual-boot support. Then it got upset and said I really should install GRUB somewhere, so I relented and installed it on /dev/hda6. That's nonsense. You could just have used the go back button to exit to the menu and selected the Don't use a bootloader option instead. Try reading some of the available documentation like the Release Notes and the Installation Guide. If you have any further questions, please ask on the debian-user list. Good luck with your installation. Cheers, FJP pgpMHcRFOyJp6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Installer problem report (dual boot loadlin)
Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 13 March 2006 23:17, Lachlan Patrick wrote: With the installer I reformatted /dev/hda6 as format ext3, then the installer automatically put the root/kernal 2.4.27 files onto that partition (without asking me, which was fine because that was what I wanted, but also annoying that it just went ahead and did that). Well, the installer _has_ to install the kernel and initrd in /boot, so if you don't create a separate /boot partition it will indeed put them in the partition that holds root. 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. 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). 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? But: when loadlin launches that 2.4 kernel with root=/dev/hda6, it starts booting but then gets to a page full of text and prints kernel panic, can't boot and then just sits there. I've exactly duplicated the loadlin command used to boot the 2.2 kernel, except I changed the parameters to use the new kernel file and root filesystem. The world has moved on and it seems you haven't (or at least, not yet). 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. Both the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are modular and thus require an initrd in order to boot. It seems to me you forgot to tell loadlin about loading the initrd and it is a known issue that older versions of loadlin don't handle (larger) initrds. OK, I didn't know that, so I'll try the initrd parameter, that helps a lot. The installer did want to write GRUB to the MBR of /dev/hda1 but I wouldn't let it. Why not? The installer should recognize both your Windows installation and your current Linux installation (unless you've done very weird things to it, like removing the kernel from /boot). 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). 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? It should provide grub menu lines that allow you to boot Windows and your old linux install. ... We've put a lot of effort into dual-boot support. 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. Even if it does not, it's a hell of a lot easier to tell grub how to boot Windows than to tell Windows how to boot linux... 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. Then it got upset and said I really should install GRUB somewhere, so I relented and installed it on /dev/hda6. That's nonsense. You could just have used the go back button to exit to the menu and selected the Don't use a bootloader option instead. 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. Try reading some of the available documentation like the Release Notes and the Installation Guide. If you have any further questions, please ask on the debian-user list. OK, will do, thanks. Good luck with your installation. Cheers, FJP Loki -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
