Thread: Linux/windows Dual Boot

Hay guys! You might like to read this rationale about overwriting the MBR before you start calling it an evil tactic to end all competition.

you might want to read the comments on the article, as well

anyway,
this is pointless
it's the same set of arguments since win95

as I've said before
use what you want to use
cause most people don't really care

Plus, I really don't think the
"You may have a boot sector virus"
is really a valid reason to commandeer the whole system
I mean, really.....

Linux can, and does, plays nice with windows

Windows could at least have the courtesy to play nice back

that's all

I agree. It seems the attitude coming from Linux towards Windows doesn't seem to be competitive as much as as wanting to be compatible with each other; For Windows, it's the complete other way around.

Still, I'm a Windows user, and I will also want to use Windows. Therefore, until I get a laptop that reads my burned DVDs so I can install Linux on it, I will just keep using Windows.

you might want to read the comments on the article, as well[/b]

Half the people in the comments didn't even read the article (I saw about ten suggestions "why not autodetect what partition is what?" when it was already said why Windows doesn't do that). Don't see your point: nobody in them said anything smart in response other than "well, it should just work anyway!".

And, like it said in the post, what's it meant to do? If you're using Linux's bootloader - not to mention all the versions there are - how is Windows meant to communicate to the bootloader "add me to list"? It just can't. Linux isn't being an oracle of openness and compatability here either, not to mention all the wonderful other OS's and god knows what other kinds of crap there could be to work with. It's the same way if you have the Windows bootloader. Linux is capable of hooking both OS' when it can guess reasonably well, but I've had distros that just overwrite my bootloader too and even then they can't get it right if there's three OS' on your computer. It's not any OS' fault, really (heck, the bootloader isn't even part of the OS you could argue) it's the way bootloaders work, but if you're a dumbo end-user and you install Windows to find you're still booting into Linux because it didn't want to overwrite your bootloader ('what's a bootloader?&#39, well, I can imagine that causing a lot of head scratching.

As for "commandeering the whole system", I mean, jeez. If you installed Linux you should be able to manage the feat of installing a boot loader like WinGRUB (or indeed just editing your boot.ini). It's not hard. You can't get Win 2000 and Win XP to dual boot easily either: they overwrite each other's MBR too. Nobody said dual-booting was going to be easy and Microsoft spending dev-time and effort on a feature that maybe 0.01% of its users ultimately care about (you won't see Grandma dual booting for a looong time) is not top of the priority list. I suppose it could be worse, it could actually be broke.

But it isn't: it just changes the bootloader over. Your data is not lost, and I've done the bootloader pizzaz plenty of times myself. Linux, Windows or whatever isn't stealing anything or overwriting anyone's stuff, it just wants to run. Anyone installing more than one OS should consider configuring the bootloader par for the course. If there was some unified interface on linking a new OS into your bootloader, and Windows was overwriting it with blithe disregard, then that'd be foul play.

You can get lucky in cases where you've started to install Linux from Windows and it can suitably guess how to link you up, but if you start reinstalling those OS'es or adding another Linux is just as useless. Installing more than one OS is a generally advanced thing to be doing in the first place, you've gotta expect some tinkering.

Kaniaz,
I don't really want this to turn into a slagging match

lets agree to disagree

I don't really want this to turn into a slagging match
[/b]

<strike>It&#39;s too late, Ynot. MY SLAG IS ON. May you be stuck in a pit of useless, endless arguing forever&#33;</strike> Okay.

Well, I set up Fedora Core 6, and as long as you don&#39;t want to use it next to a Windows installation, I guess everything is fine - it works perfectly, and I love it.

It owns Slackware and Gentoo by far, imho.

It owns Slackware and Gentoo by far, imho.[/b]

Slackware all the way. It&#39;s the only distribution that didn&#39;t immediately puke on me all those years ago. And ever since that day, it won my heart.

Or the pieces of it after being so cruelly shred to pieces by the promises of an "easy installation" by Mandriva (bullshit) and "great times" with Red Hat* (it required more memory than Vista does now). Oh how emotional those Linux installations can be.

* Yeah, Fedora. You don&#39;t fool me with your name changes, stupid demons.

Uh, not to be a bitch (but I&#39;m still going to be) - Slackware&#39;s installation puked on me more than Fedora&#39;s did.

Uh, not to be puking but I think it&#39;s obvious that judging an OS by its installation is...you get the picture.

I was complaining about Mandriva&#39;s installation, Red Hat&#39;s installation was as exciting and wonderful as OS installations can be. Although actually I got Mandriva to eventually install and then it didn&#39;t like the wireless card, so I think I just gave up with it. It&#39;s a crap distribution. May Mandriva die in a gutter. I used both of them eventually to some degree, I just didn&#39;t feel like writing a fantastic detailed review and life of times of Linux on the spot right there, y&#39;know?

Slackware was a wonderful distro. I was on Slackware 9 and it&#39;s now on 11, so God knows what&#39;s changed. Same with Red Hat and Mandriva I suppose, but I&#39;m not really willing to subject myself to Chinese water torture again when the best I could get out of it is an open source freedom-o-matic computer that, er, can&#39;t connect to the internet (Linux has fantastically crap dialup hardware support).

Well, I just deleted my Windows partition, so I&#39;m now running 100% Ubuntu. Just decided I didn&#39;t use the Windows boot option anymore, so I got rid of it to make space for all my music to be moved onto my harddrive.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Well, I just deleted my Windows partition, so I&#39;m now running 100% Ubuntu. Just decided I didn&#39;t use the Windows boot option anymore, so I got rid of it to make space for all my music to be moved onto my harddrive.
[/b]

I felt a great disturbance. As if millions of DLL&#39;s cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Either way, I fucking love my Linux PC, but I would never ditch Windows for it.

Music > Windows

Perhaps, perhaps. But that&#39;s what external hard drives are for.

I&#39;ve got one. 250 Gig. It&#39;s got backups of my music, but amaroK doesn&#39;t like having my library on an external harddrive as much. Especially since the external is formatted in NTFS so I can&#39;t edit tags or delete duplicates. Eventually I&#39;ll get around to switching the format.

Glad to hear it&#39;s all working out for you Tsen

I&#39;m surprised and also kind of Jealous because my year-long experience with Linux wasn&#39;t as smooth

As for NTFS... I&#39;m pretty sure there&#39;s ways to make it work fine in Linux, have you tried http://www.ubuntuguide.org ?

I would recommend converting the filesystem from NTFS, unless you still need it available to access Windows at a snap. NTFS drivers for Linux are quite good (in fact very good) but ReiserFS or ext3 might be a better idea if you intend to make Linux your base for everything.

EDIT: AmaroK looks impressive. To the VPC&#33;

Yeah, it&#39;s too bad the current PC with Linux in my room right now is going to be used as a server, I got kinda attached to it.

Well, the thing is, I&#39;m a music pirate at heart, so I&#39;ve been using my external as a go-between to rip people&#39;s entire libraries at once. So I kind of need the NTFS since most people run Windows, but at the same time it makes using it difficult in Linux.
So I&#39;m looking at some of those programs to make NTFS work a little better with Linux. Thanks for the links, by the way--and yes, Kaniaz, amaroK is super awesome. I lurve it.