|
Post Number: 1
|
kornalldaway
1337 like alan turing
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Jan. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 13 2001,00:58 |
|
|
just a questio, but is there any way at all to make NT bootloader load linux with a certain string for boot.ini. i've noticed they to put strings like /multi(0)/disk(0) and so on, and was wondering if it was possible to make it boot partition with linux with that string i am aware that is should be done the other way, make lilo choose either linux or windows, but i am wondering if it's possible the other way around
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 2
|
|
Post Number: 3
|
|
Post Number: 4
|
|
Post Number: 5
|
kornalldaway
1337 like alan turing
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Jan. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 14 2001,21:08 |
|
|
well the thing is... i have my master hardrive split in two on first partition i have 2000 Advanced Server and on the second one i have XP RTM. Now i hade another 2 partitions on my slave drive and used one for swap and another one for root partition. well since u can't make a partition on slave active and boot from it lilo has to write itself to the boot sector of the active partition. redhat did that nicely, so did slackware. but now i installed mandrake and it completely screwes up my MBS. i have lilo on boot and when i choose dos it gives me a choice of either 2kAS or XP when i try to boot to xp it just hangs nad then i get a blue screen i tried repairing XP from repair console and the full repair thing. nothing worked after i reinstalled XP my lilo was gone, but XP was booting just fine i can attempt to set windows 2000 pertition as active and install lilo that way, but i am afraid i will loose my advanced server, and quiet frankly it will be a pain in the ass to set it all up again so i guess since i don't use linux too often i will just stick to booting from a floppy
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 6
|
askheaves
Ack!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 15 2001,00:01 |
|
|
It baffles me how much effort people are willing to expend to have a bunch of OS's on their computers. I have 1 OS on each computer, WinXP (Desktop), Win2K (Laptop), Win2K Adv Server (Server). They all have distinct purposes... Lunix doesn't fall under any of them. Seems like ya'll try to create reasons to justify having an OS. I tried Lunix for a while, but couldn't find a good use for it. It sat there until the OS crashed, and the motherboard went quickly with it.
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 7
|
|
Post Number: 8
|
incubus
mack daddy
Group: Admins
Posts: 1316
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 15 2001,08:28 |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askheaves: It baffles me how much effort people are willing to expend to have a bunch of OS's on their computers. I have 1 OS on each computer, WinXP (Desktop), Win2K (Laptop), Win2K Adv Server (Server). They all have distinct purposes... Lunix doesn't fall under any of them. Seems like ya'll try to create reasons to justify having an OS. I tried Lunix for a while, but couldn't find a good use for it. It sat there until the OS crashed, and the motherboard went quickly with it.
Each to their own, but you sat around til it crashed?! My box has been up for 10 days (since I built it) so far, and it only goes down for kernel or hardware upgrades. It's a server for ~10 machines, and does SSH, FTP, SMB, DNS, WWW, SMTP, POP3, MRTG, BB, IPCHAINS & IPMASQ, all that shiznit. I'd pitch a linux box's stability as a server against an NT box any day, but I ain't starting no OS war. One fundimental part is, it's free! How many people here that are running Win2k server bla bla have actually paid for it? Exactly. This message has been edited by incubus on October 16, 2001 at 03:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|