LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)
-   -   grub4dos is grub2 or grub1? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/grub4dos-is-grub2-or-grub1-758129/)

zoombee 09-27-2009 06:58 PM

grub4dos is grub2 or grub1?
 
innocent question but I would like to know if grub4dos (https://gna.org/projects/grub4dos/) is Grub Legacy (http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-legacy.en.html) or Grub2 (http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-2.en.html) ?

Larry Webb 09-28-2009 03:22 PM

I have no way to download grub4dos and I can not find any material on it but I would think it would support sata plus still able to boot dos. I would say it is the best of both worlds.

PTrenholme 09-28-2009 03:56 PM

Perhaps I don't "get it," :scratch: but even GRUB 1, and, certainly, GRUB 2 can be used - as anyone running a dual-boot system can aver - to boot a DOS system. So, what does "grub4dos" bring to the table that's not already there? Since GRUB is run before any OS is started, how can there be a version "for DOS" or "for Linux" unless, perhaps, the project is/was to rebuild the GRUB installation tools as a DOS (or Windows) application? I suppose that might be useful for anyone who wanted to use GRUB but didn't want to boot a Linux Live CD to replace the DOS MBR.

Oh, I also note that the last project update was last June and the last heavy activity was back in March, and that the "project" seems to have only one "developer."

zoombee 09-29-2009 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Webb (Post 3699743)
I have no way to download grub4dos and I can not find any material on it but I would think it would support sata plus still able to boot dos. I would say it is the best of both worlds.

project home:
https://gna.org/projects/grub4dos/

download files from here:
http://download.gna.org/grub4dos/
grab the last one:
grub4dos-0.4.4-2009-06-20.zip
http://download.gna.org/grub4dos/gru...2009-06-20.zip

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTrenholme (Post 3699773)
Perhaps I don't "get it," :scratch: but even GRUB 1, and, certainly, GRUB 2 can be used - as anyone running a dual-boot system can aver - to boot a DOS system. So, what does "grub4dos" bring to the table that's not already there? Since GRUB is run before any OS is started, how can there be a version "for DOS" or "for Linux" unless, perhaps, the project is/was to rebuild the GRUB installation tools as a DOS (or Windows) application? I suppose that might be useful for anyone who wanted to use GRUB but didn't want to boot a Linux Live CD to replace the DOS MBR.

Wrong. Grub for Dos runs after Windows NT Loader is started. To install grub4dos you need to:

1. copy grldr in C:\

2. Edit "c:\boot.ini" and add:
C:\grldr="Start GRUB"

3. add your "menu.lst" file to c:\boot\grub\

Done

When computer starts, NT Loader starts, then you will have 2 options:
1. start Windows
2. Start GRUB

It's an extremely useful program, as you don't have to mess with your MBR sector, no need to have a boot partition. There are distributions like for example SLAX, that don't need a Linux partition (yes, you can just copy files in C:\). Isn't that easy? Now you just integrate grub it into boot.ini and it's done !

Quote:

Oh, I also note that the last project update was last June and the last heavy activity was back in March, and that the "project" seems to have only one "developer."
Many great projects have just one developer. To name just a very few: Total Commander (34 million visits on its web site by the way), Free Commander, notepad2, Media Player Classic, Irfanview, Virtual Dub.
Many times one person develops greater projects by far than other projects managed by an entire team.

Larry Webb 09-29-2009 07:31 AM

Sorry I misssed the links to the source repositories on your home page.

The need for it is what I question, I like keeping distros in separate partitions. (I am not a programmer and it is hard enough to keep things straight in their own partitions) Grub will boot any partition.

I do applaud you for your project and you are right, some of the good projects have come from small teams.

PTrenholme 09-29-2009 11:55 AM

Ah, I see. But that, too, is a trivial exercise. All you need to do is install GRUB on some partition (or the MBR of a secondary drive), and use dd to copy the first 512 bytes of wherever you installed it to a file on your Windows C drive. Then making an entry in the ntldr or bootloader pointing to that file is all that you need to do.

I had a Gateway laptop a few years ago where the BIOS was hard-coded to boot the mini-NT recovery partition to perform what they called "sanity checks" before booting XP, so I had to do the above dance to get GRUB to work on that laptop (since I wanted a dual-boot system). With boot.ini pointing to GRUB, and GRUB pointing to XP, I could go around in circles all day - if I had nothing better to do.

I'm still puzzled as to why a project is needed to do such trivia. Although I must admit that doing that dance on Vista or Windows 7 may be more involved. So far, I haven't needed to dance with either of those operating systems.

zoombee 09-29-2009 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Webb (Post 3700446)
Sorry I misssed the links to the source repositories on your home page.

The need for it is what I question, I like keeping distros in separate partitions. (I am not a programmer and it is hard enough to keep things straight in their own partitions) Grub will boot any partition

Each linux you install makes a "menu.lst" file on its own partition. Instead of having 10 grub configuration files, you can use grub4dos and start all Linuxes from there

Quote:

I do applaud you for your project and you are right, some of the good projects have come from small teams.
Oh lol it's not my project. I'm just a moderate computer user. I'm far from being capable to do such program like grub4dos

Quote:

Originally Posted by PTrenholme (Post 3700668)
Then making an entry in the ntldr or bootloader pointing to that file is all that you need to do.

How you point the ntldr to load that file?

Quote:

I'm still puzzled as to why a project is needed to do such trivia. Although I must admit that doing that dance on Vista or Windows 7 may be more involved. So far, I haven't needed to dance with either of those operating systems.
It is very usefull because if your main operating system is Windows, you don't depend on anything from any Linux partition. In case you delete the linuxes, in the worst case they won't start. But Windows will be not affected at all.
Imagine you have one partition with Windows XP and one with Fedora. If you want to format / delete the partition where Fedora is, you can do it without any headache. Your boot loader and configuration does not depend on it. Also if you want to install another Linux on that partition. Just format / delete / reinstall Linux on that partition, and Windows is not affected in any way. Or imagine a linux installation that goes wrong and wipes grub configuration file first
You still use ntldr, and Windows has no problem at all, no matter how bad you screw things on the Linux partition

Larry Webb 09-29-2009 03:54 PM

All my distros are setup to chainload with grub and menu.lst being in its own 2 meg partition. With the size of hds nowdays I do not think saving the size of a menu.lst in each distro is going to save enough space to worry about. When you chainload all your distros you only have one menu.lst to worry about. Same thing deleteing all the distros except windows and windows will still boot.

aus9 10-26-2009 05:18 AM

hi

How you point the ntldr to load that file?

http://www.geocities.com/epark/linux...w2k-HOWTO.html

you install during the linux install process....grub to the partition that holds boot/...it does not have to be a separate partition.

you then run dd command to copy the grub legacy stage 1 file ...but if you have a modern linux you could probably do it all from linux and not boot into windows.

I can't test that as I no longer have windows on my pc.


2) Far far easier...is to avoid that ntldr file all together which is how Larry does it and others ...with grub legacy in mbr and the balance of the files under boot folder/partition with a menu that has chainloader to everyone you want to go.

However, the days of legacy are dated and dark...its time to move to grub2

(smiles)

zhaopei 05-13-2010 04:43 AM

i've been using grub4dos and grub2 for a while.
and i feel that grub2 is better for a pure linux user, but grub4dos is really handy for a linux-windows user in some circumstance.
Because grub4dos can directly load ntldr or io.sys, without have to access those partition boot loader first.
That feature is not supported by grub2(i think), and it helps me a lot to deal with those "missing boot loader" problems.

joefasza 07-29-2010 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhaopei (Post 3966731)
Because grub4dos can directly load ntldr or io.sys, without have to access those partition boot loader first.

I think thats the point, but I also have Win installed and I load with NTLDR because when I reinstall it it rewrites the MBR each time and this way its just easier to edit boot.ini and set grub4dos in there.

grub4dos can be loaded by other bootloaders as well, can boot iso images (grub2 can do that as well).

But just like zhaopei said the best thing in it is when your win partition boot sector becomes corrupted you can boot NTLDR directly.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.