[SOLVED] 1001 ways to dual boot 2 distros -- which is correct?
Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I first installed my windows, then Debian and installed grub through normal installation steps, then installed slackware without installing and bootloader, thereafter run grub setup again from debian. Windows is installed and is not used much, debian is primary and slackware partition i use to try other distros using the same principle.
Location: North of Boston, Mass (North Shore/Cape Ann)
Distribution: CentOS 7.0 (and kvm/qemu)
Dual boot, how about VM?
I've learned a lot from the discussion, Thanks.
I may have to change my plan, which was to on my next computer (when I can afford a 64-bit machine) create a dual boot machine, windows and Linux, but then install a VM under the Linux (I'm leaning toward VMWare or VSXi).
The inconvenience with dual-booting is it's either one or the other. With VM, I can have as many distros as I like, as many live (or not) as I like, and be able to switch at will, starting and stopping at will. Etc.
If I have many distros, generally I'm probably only running one or two of them, so I don't need a honking machine -- I have different distros because I'm doing something with this one, then moving on, returning to it when a customer (with that distro) has a problem etc. Also a fine test bed to learn and experiment.
(Of course, the VM would also be running services that one runs within VMs, typically why one has a VM, that's outside this discussion.)
So, to this forum, with folk more versed in multi-booting then myself, I ask:
Would using a VM solve the problem(s) being discussed,
or does it fall short for reasons I'll soon learn
Also to you who are more experienced, having a partition per distro as you suggest, is it feasible/advisable to share partitions as well. Say, a partition for your web-hosting and tools, so whichever distro you've 'multi-booted' into, you still can access and manipulate the same data, perhaps load experimental programs, perhaps programs you're developing that you now wish to test within several distros, etc.
I am not an expert but i tend to get things done from my computer which i want.
vm as per my experience is only good for testing and i would not opt it for production system ( as you may learn from your future experiences).
i have sufficient disk space for my operating systems hence, i have given a 100 gb + 150 gb for windows and its dedicated use (future proofing as well), 50 gb for debian , 30 for for my test distros, and some 2 -3 partitions for various other purposes which can be either fat of ext filesystems. i maintain 10 gb of dedicated fat for using and hosting and developing applications and softwares interchangeably from win to deb to back and so forth.
the above is working for me and i suppose leaving the numbers out, the same may also work for you.
On my desktop 1.5Tb HD, I have a 25Gb Partition for WinXP, a 25Gb partition for Win7, a 25Mb FAT partition where my GRUB resides, one extended partition making up the rest of the HD consisting of 15 logical partitions of which I have 5 or 6 Linux distributions installed. Really not hard to do. Instead of having the loader into MBR, put it in the / of each partition. I just followed the instructions by saikee over at j u s t l i n u x dotcom in the thread, "How to install and boot 145 operating systems in a PC".
I'm starting the same thing with a laptop that was given to me that already had WinXP installed on it. I have BackTrack installed on it already.
I don't have any problems with either system the way it is set up.
Success!! Hi and thanks for all the help. It was easier than I envisioned.
Just install both distros into previously-partitioned disk (on seperate partitions)
Put the bootloader for both in the MBR.
From here the second one that was installed is the only one that shows up in the grub menu, so just boot up into it and then run # update-grub. This found the first distro and I was in business.
With the price of HDD's, just buy a plug n play tray for your HDD and stop worring about it. also don't have to worry about the drive going bad. been doing this for about ten years after getting tired of hasseling with duel boot compatibility.
Hmm, this brings up some questions for me. Now, I've installed a Linux distro with Win already installed and (partially) working, and I think I used LILO for that. Grub isn't really that much different, it just takes some getting used to. I've always heard that having Win installed first makes the job easier if you already have the free space. I've even thought about trying to install Win with Fedora already on there, but I worry that I may screw it up good. My internal HD is about 80G, and I have a 500G external that stays plugged in all of the time like a regular HD, so it's just a little time to back up everything. The 500G is split in half, 250G ext4 and 250G NTFS since I did SOME backup of Windows before abandoning it.
Now, I'm wondering if I can re-install Windows without corrupting anything. The NTFS partition on the big drive is the first, and can be primary along with all of the backups. I think about 90 or 100G would be enough to install it if I decide to. All I have is a restore image and a "rescue disk" from my original Win Vista install. Would that work, just so I can pop in and run something that WON'T run on Fedora?
Oh, and sorry for dredging up this old thread, but it looked handy for the situation!
With the price of HDD's so cheap, just buy a plug n play tray for your HDD and stop worring about LILO or Grub. I also don't have to worry about the drive going bad. Been doing this for about ten years after getting tired of hasseling with duel boot compatibility.
I have about 6 versions of linux and my original window 7 on seperate drives and just plug in the one I want to use.