Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
Originally Posted by jimwg Jim in NYC JIM, I did not check into the "Advanced" settings for Ubuntu grub2 installation. Perhaps there is a flag there. I prefer to run ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Newbie glene77is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    125

    Quote Originally Posted by jimwg View Post
    Jim in NYC
    JIM,
    I did not check into the "Advanced" settings for Ubuntu grub2 installation. Perhaps there is a flag there.

    I prefer to run Puppy Linux, from a booting USB PenDrive,
    from which I can load several Linux
    and also kick-start any XP/Vista/7 computer that uses OS.SYS/boot.sys/ntldr. My XP computer will run the M$ MBR boot into my Linux grub4dos bootloader 'grldr', which is a trick I learned about swapping filenames. Be happy to send you the simple procedure and the grub4dos code.

    Have a lovely old picture of my '58 Volkswagen Beetle,
    sitting under a Christmas tree, and a foot of snow!
    Memories of New York from my youth.

  2. #12
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    3,105
    glenne77is:
    What is a "Normal" install on Mint that you refer to above? I have recently installed Mint 12 and did not see that option. The options were install alongside other OSs, erase and use entire disk and something else. The something else option is the equivalent of what used to be referred to as Manual or Advanced. Every time I've used the manual, advanced or "something else" type options on any Linux system, I have had the option of where to install the bootloader. I'm just wondering if using the options such as install alongside do not give bootloader options. I expect that might be the case as the bootloader has to be installed somewhere and the only way for the developers to assure it booting would be to set it to install to the mbr?

    Just curious about the options as I've seen numerous posts where people say they haven't seen a bootloader option and wondered if this might be the reason?

  3. #13
    Linux Newbie glene77is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by yancek View Post
    glenne77is:
    Yancek,
    During the install, at nearly the last step, I saw an option "Advanced", which I did not take, and then I had no further options, it went directly to writing. I saw a flash later "update-grub" (sic) or "install-grub" (sic). The "(sic)" is a literary term for "Might not be spelled correctly".

    So,
    Initially there is a standard "along-side-of" install,
    and a "manual" user specified partion install.
    Could be that I always take the "manual" install,
    and I don't remember if I ever checked the available options
    for that branched install.

    Next chance,
    I will delete & re-install Mint several times,
    and check the available options.

    How is it that Barry Kauer's Puppy Linux
    will install in 2 minutes, and Ubuntu takes 20 ???
    Last time I took Ubuntu off the HD
    was when it reached 8 GB size (plus swap),
    and
    my Puppy Linux OS subdirectory was only 2 GB (no swap)
    including OpenOffice, etc, etc.
    Maybe I missed something, there.

    Do not really miss the small systems of yesteryear.
    1980, Used CP/M (ran on Z-80 processor, 4MHz)
    with 26 KB core, and Word Star v1., assembler languages.
    But, I miss being a young man.

  4. #14
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    3,105
    During the install, at nearly the last step, I saw an option "Advanced"
    Which version of Mint did you see that on? I have installed Mint 12 and there is no such option. Just the three options at the beginning I mentioned above. There is an Installation Type window which shows partitions in the main window and also has an option near the bottom for Device for bootloader installation.

    Ubuntu takes longer to install because it is much larger and usually downloads a lot during the install. You can deselect that option. Last time I checked, Puppy was about 128MB on the iso and Ubuntu was 670MB. With Ubuntu, it tells you before you begin the installation you will need 4+GB.

  5. #15
    Linux Newbie glene77is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by yancek View Post
    Which version of Mint did you see that on?
    Ubuntu takes longer to install ....
    Yancek,

    Mint Version 9.
    The download for v12 was running at 100KB per second.
    So, I opted to just order a new CD from OSDisc.

    The poke at Ubuntu was an indirect poke at M$
    Both use the 'scattered' OS, not the Squash File OS.

    IM(ns)HO ,
    M$ is far LESS friendly than Ubuntu during the install.
    The CD's I have for M$-XP require the ENTIRE HD !
    I can handle it, but when I think of the dozens of Puppy OS
    I have installed by simply copying four files,
    and tweaking the menu.lst
    . . . well, I like the Puppy OS.

  6. #16
    Linux Newbie glene77is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    125

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by yancek View Post
    Which version of Mint did you see that on? I have installed Mint 12 and there is no such option..
    Yancek,
    I received the Mint 12 CD and installed it.
    My results were not helpful.

    Mint offered no options (yes/no) for installing the MBR or bootloader, just required I select the location of the bootloader (sda1,sdb1, etc.) and required me to specify the location of the bootloader, from a list of '/', '/boot', etc. Confusing .

    This is not the way 'grub4dos' allows a specific selection of these functions/locations.

    Since Mint was going to sdb5 , I selected that, and '/'.
    In the process, No MBR change occurred.
    I suspect that if I had selected sdb1,
    that it might have written a new MBR.
    On reboot, my original grub4dos ran properly.

    I suspect that the Mint developers are trying to make a very "M$ Windows" like install, in the sense that they shield the consumer level user from the technicalities of an OS install.

    They have copied Ubuntu basically, and added some attempts at clarification in some spots. When I have installed it a few more times, I will have a more exact picture of it.

    glene77is

  7. #17
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    3,105
    I don't have an install CD of Mint to test but, I am wondering if on the Installation Type page a person would have a blank option when clicking the down arrow on the tab below device for bootloader installation? I don't recall seeing that so probably not. The /, /boot options you refer to I saw when selecting partitions but not in relation to a bootloader. By selecting / and sda5, Grub would have been installed to that partition and of course, you would still have your original bootloader from the mbr, grub4dos in your case. In your case above, if you had select sdb or sda, it would have overwritten the mbr of that drive. If you had selected sdb1, it would have messed with the boot files there, probably overwriting something, depending on the system you have there.

    Thanks for the info.

  8. #18
    Linux Newbie glene77is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by yancek View Post
    I don't have an install CD of Mint to test but, I am wondering if on the Installation Type page a person would have a blank option when clicking the down arrow on the tab below device for bootloader installation? I don't recall seeing that so probably not.
    >>> Did not see any such options in MINT.


    The /, /boot options you refer to I saw when selecting partitions but not in relation to a bootloader.
    >>> The MINT wording is confusing.


    By selecting / and sda5, Grub would have been installed to that partition and of course, you would still have your original bootloader from the mbr, grub4dos in your case.
    >>> Right.
    '/' and 'sda5' refer only to the partition,
    not to the base MBR for the disk.
    So, my HD sda MBR still activated the base sda 'bootloader'.
    In my case, the HD MBR seeks 'ntldr'
    which is my 'grldr' renamed, which then brings up the grub4dos menu.lst.
    From there I select M$ or Linux or second HD with more Linux.

    In your case above, if you had select sdb or sda, it would have overwritten the mbr of that drive.
    >>> Right. That is the way I interpreted 'sda' or 'sdb'
    That is the way the HD booting system worked after the install.

    If you had selected sdb1, it would have messed with the boot files there, probably overwriting something, depending on the system you have there.
    >>> Right. Overwrote existing 'grldr' and 'menu.lst',
    which I replaced from a dated backup.


    Thanks for the info.
    Yancek,
    Thanks for reviewing my work.
    Glen

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •