Sascha Wildner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Due to cramped space it's not easily possible to
> assign more descriptive texts for the menu choices
> based on the sysid.
...
> It would be nice to have some better descriptions
> for people that like to multi-boot (like me).
It seems hard to fi
Magnus Eriksson wrote:
Hmm. I noticed that the man pages supposedly documenting the booting
process aren't that well written (imho), maybe that's something I could
look at.
That would be great.
Sascha
--
http://yoyodyne.ath.cx
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Ben Cadieux wrote:
Well ... if we/you want to Do It Right, the boot selector really should
ask the user what operating systems actually are installed.
Then the MBR would need to be reinstalled every time repartitioning
was done? It would also need to be reinstalled from
>Well ... if we/you want to Do It Right, the boot selector really should
> ask the user what operating systems actually are installed.
Then the MBR would need to be reinstalled every time repartitioning
was done? It would also need to be reinstalled from DFly then (or
wherever the apps are wr
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Ben Cadieux wrote:
>> I would suggest that FAT come out saying "DOS/Win9x" and NTFS say "WinNT
>> +". My reason for that is based on the fact that the old version of
>
> That sounds reasonable enough; everyone agree?
Well ... if we/you want to Do It Right, the boot selecto
> I would suggest that FAT come out saying "DOS/Win9x" and NTFS say "WinNT
> +". My reason for that is based on the fact that the old version of
That sounds reasonable enough; everyone agree?
Oh and yea, 3.x, 9x and ME all boot DOS "underneath"
ME Kind of just pretended it wasn't there.
- BC
> At the moment it just shows fat/ntfs as being "Windows" - since
> there's likely very few people booting DOS on Fat in comparison.
> But I guess we'd need a vote on what file systems should say what :)
I would suggest that FAT come out saying "DOS/Win9x" and NTFS say "WinNT
+". My reason for
> Thanks for your offer, yet, what's the gain with your MBR? Or put
> differently: what's wrong with the one from FreeBSD?
Well, what would you like to see different? I never really decided on
anything...but perhaps a "boot from floppy" option? A visual
countdown? When all the journaling fea
> It would be nice to have some better descriptions for people that like
> to multi-boot (like me).
At this point there's lots of room, we'll see when I've added more
features. I can always figure out a way to optimize it. At the
moment it just shows fat/ntfs as being "Windows" - since there's
l
Ben Cadieux wrote:
I wrote an MBR at one point - it's quite similar to FreeBSD's, except
instead of function keys it looks something like this:
Does that also support booting the "last booted" OS like our boot0 or
does it have the concept of a "default choice" which is used when the
user does
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Thanks for your offer, yet, what's the gain with your MBR? Or put
differently: what's wrong with the one from FreeBSD?
One thing at least: Due to cramped space it's not easily possible to
assign more descriptive texts for the menu choices based on the sysid.
Ben Cadieux wrote:
Just say the word and I'll fire the source off your way - it's in
nasm. I'll need to mod it to add support for other things though,
like multiple hard disks. (FreeBSD has an "F5-Disk2" option).
Thanks for your offer, yet, what's the gain with your MBR? Or put
differently:
Hi Everyone,
I wrote an MBR at one point - it's quite similar to FreeBSD's, except
instead of function keys it looks something like this:
Windows
> DragonFlyBSD
FreeBSD
Uhm, paste that into vi or something that has a set font size and it
will make sense! Anyway, you use the arrow keys and p
13 matches
Mail list logo
