| Ubuntu This forum is for the discussion of Ubuntu Linux. |
| Notices |
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.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
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.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
04-08-2005, 10:00 PM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 136
Rep:
|
loading Ubuntu on a separate drive
Hi,
About to load Kubuntu on a separate drive from SuSE 9.2. When I've done this in the past, I've run in to problems with the OS going on to the desired drive but the bootloader overwriting the bootloader of the other OS on the other drive. With SuSE and Fedora, on install there are settings that let you confirm where the bootloader will go.
Does Ubuntu allow you to confirm where the bootloader will go during the install? I want to keep the OS's and bootloaders completely separate, only switching between them but flipping the drive that will boot in the bios.
I've looked at the OSDir screenshots of Ubuntu, but that didn't help me.
Anyone know?
Thanks,
Rory
|
|
|
|
04-09-2005, 12:56 AM
|
#2
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: Mac OS X 10.6.4 "Snow Leopard", Win 7, Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 322
Rep:
|
It's been awhile since I installed Ubuntu, but I am pretty sure you can. You can manually type in where you want it to write the BL to, just like in debian install.
|
|
|
|
04-09-2005, 08:20 AM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 136
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Hmm... manual type destination of bootloader.
Can anyone confirm?
|
|
|
|
04-10-2005, 03:53 AM
|
#4
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Distribution: Dual booting Mandrake 10 and SUSE 9.1
Posts: 44
Rep:
|
If you disconect the drive with SUSE9.2 on it and connect the other drive and load Ubuntu on that and then have both drives connected will that get you what you want?
|
|
|
|
04-10-2005, 07:41 AM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 136
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Yes, disconnecting drives is the cleanest method for this, as it ensures the bootloader can't get thrown on the other drive.
In my case, it worked out. I had SuSE 9.2 and the bootloader on my hdb drive. So, I was loading Ubuntu on the hda drive. It automatically wants to put the bootloader on the MBR of hda. So, it was fine to let it do that. Ubuntu also recognized I had SuSE 9.2 and added it to the hda bootloader, as well, which is handy.
I can confirm there was an option to reject putting the bootloader on the mbr of hda. But, I did not select 'no' so I didn't see options beyond that.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|