Chaps,

just wondered. Given that on one machine I've a very complicated set of
lilo and grub installs I wondered if I could use a minimal linux install as
a bootloader instead.

Might be a tad slow, but it might be an alternative. The thing that makes
me nervous of grub is that stage 1 (was it 2) of grub requires a file in a
certain directory in a certain disk partition - not much cop if you've
reformatted the partition I assume.

After looking at lilo and grub side by side they seem to have different
strengths and weaknesses. Can't say I'd pick one over the other but can
see why exs grub users would miss it on slack (on default install).

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:03:18 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

> Chaps,
>
> just wondered. Given that on one machine I've a very complicated set of
> lilo and grub installs I wondered if I could use a minimal linux install
> as a bootloader instead.
>
> Might be a tad slow, but it might be an alternative. The thing that
> makes me nervous of grub is that stage 1 (was it 2) of grub requires a
> file in a certain directory in a certain disk partition - not much cop
> if you've reformatted the partition I assume.
>
> After looking at lilo and grub side by side they seem to have different
> strengths and weaknesses. Can't say I'd pick one over the other but can
> see why exs grub users would miss it on slack (on default install).
>
> Pete

I'd run a 32mb fat partition and use loadlin, you could fit a bunch of
boot type stuff on there.

Leonard The Committed wrote:


> I'd run a 32mb fat partition and use loadlin, you could fit a bunch of
> boot type stuff on there.

Probally the better bet. I did this once on an old scsi based system that
refused to play ball with lilo.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:03:18 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

> Chaps,
>
> just wondered. Given that on one machine I've a very complicated set of
> lilo and grub installs I wondered if I could use a minimal linux install as
> a bootloader instead.
>
> Might be a tad slow, but it might be an alternative. The thing that makes
> me nervous of grub is that stage 1 (was it 2) of grub requires a file in a
> certain directory in a certain disk partition - not much cop if you've
> reformatted the partition I assume.
>
> After looking at lilo and grub side by side they seem to have different
> strengths and weaknesses. Can't say I'd pick one over the other but can
> see why exs grub users would miss it on slack (on default install).
>
> Pete
>
The key thing when making changes to your partition layout is to have a
fallback position in case things don't work as planned (for whatever
reason.)

Computers are dumb- they only do what you tell them. At least, I have
found that grub will do what you tell it (which is nice.) I like to have
a simple fallback mechanism, and grub fits the bill. Grub can be installed
on a bootable CD or bootable USB key. Once you are at the grub prompt, it
_should_** be able to find your kernel and initrd.


(** Assuming you haven't hosed the partition where the kernel and initrd
live.)

So, instead of doing machinations with loadlin, I'd spend some time
learning about the grub loader. It can pay dividends in the long run. It
is easy to make a grub bootable cd or usb key. Just be careful when making
changes to your setup (hit your intended target, etc.) The resulting cd or
key will be useful as a boot disk for all of your Slackware systems.

Hints:
1. RTFM.
2. configfile is a useful keyword.
3. /boot should be on the root filesystem with kernel and initd and with
a subdirectory /boot/grub.

--
Seth: Brundle, Seth. Give me a disc...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/quotes