is it ok if i vent here over mild frustration from impatience?
LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.
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.
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Did this or the thread posted in the link, make you;
feel confused
3
20.00%
feel sick
2
13.33%
feel a need for more information
6
40.00%
feel a need to expell something from your being
2
13.33%
think the guy wasn't serious
8
53.33%
try something new
2
13.33%
close the mind
2
13.33%
open the mind
2
13.33%
scratch your head
3
20.00%
move to the next thread
9
60.00%
smile
4
26.67%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll
in the thread at the above posted link, i asked what was wrong with installing a bootloader in the MBR. people either missed this question, or were more concerned with the nature and manner in which the question was asked. as no one raised any issue with the question of concern, that of installing a bootloader to the MBR.
am i now to asume that there is infact nothing to be concerned about the installation of a bootloader to the MBR and instead turn my attention to how to write questions to satisfy the unimaginative or literaturativly anally retenisent?
pity it got closed before i returned to it. i'm sure others too have had concern over this issue when installing new opperating systems and recieving the message from various aveneus of help "DO NOT INSTALL TO THE MBR", "DON'T TOUCH THE MBR", "LEAVE THE MBR ALONE" and other messages of similar content, alwasy writen in caps for emphasis. and so now i wonder... is it a conspiracy of these situational advice and warning givers, or an event to highlight our ineptitude and past failings (perhaps born out of design flaws in the system) to reccognise content, blinded by over interest in procedure... perhaps a side effect of the teaching methods prevailent in many IT courses and institutions, unintentional in its slant effect on the psyche and mental approach of many a geek? thus the stagnation in any real developmental advancements in user interfaces and their integration between software and user's activity, which is the only true bottleneck we face in computing in this human generation. ...?
no, i can tell you've already started to formulate your responce prior to considering, prior to giving a moments contemplation of ...
as the name suggests, "linuxquestions", rather than "linuxquestionsthinkingandotheroutoftheboxweindesperationclingto" or maybe it was just called linux questions because as to hint at more requires impractically lengthy names. too much? you decide, or don't, you read it.
Next time use words while asking a question. Not hanging exclamation marks or question marks. We aren't mind readers, for God's sake!
How are we supposed to know why you asked that question? There are many contexts in asking questions... without the context, what answer did you expect?
If this was a linuxpsychicquestions.org site, then I'm sure you were perfectly justified in that question.
Last edited by vharishankar; 02-20-2006 at 09:31 PM.
The responces you received were reasonable and to the point.
Basically, you asked "So?" and the responce was "So what?" in several different ways. Your responce should have been to explain the original question - providing examples.
I'll explain:
The people responding to your post are doing so from the context of answering a question about some sort of problem. Your post did not actually state what your problem was (vis: that you have read many warnings not to install to MBR)
Without this very simple peice of information, nobody could have responded in any other way to your post.
And to answer your question: when dual booting with WinXP or similar, there can be problems getting windows to boot if you have overwritten the windows bootloader. (It is often done to use GRUB or whatever to load windows via the windows bootloader.) People who have had troubles resulting from this tend to get a tad hysterical about it because of the amount of pain involved in fixing this.
There are other reasons, like some windows apps will complain unless the NT bootloader is in MBR (like anti-virus programs which complain that the MBR has been invaded!)
There is some concern that a misconfigured MBR means you cannot boot anything - but this is silly: as if nobody has heard of a rescue CD.
Keep in mind that your question is the equivalent of asking
"Okay, my computer can boot. Is there anything I can do to fix it?"
Then you justify the question by calling people who don't anwser it umimaginitive and literaturativly anally retenisent? But the only correct answer to that question is a destructive answer.
Quote:
literaturativly?
rentenisten?
These are actually words? No wonder why you confuse the hell out of people. If you want to talk to people you gotta learn how to talk in their own language. I don't see why you choose to be so creative and wordy in your complaint, but when it comes to asking for simple advice you start talking in caveman speak.
Quote:
....!
so....?
"MBR....bootloader...problem? derm... grrr. Must smash"
thanks for the logic, the time, etc, and also thanks for letting me off with this venting.
Quote:
Pride issues maybe?
maybe.
issues with the english language... definately.
Quote:
You say that you have installed the Boot Loader to the MBR.
Well...I don't see it as a problem, but you do!
I don't! that was why i was asking.
but simon bridge already pointed out the viod of context that needed filling in the original question.
and back to "context"....
having seen one too many warnings "not to install bootloader to mbr" out of context, i then unwittingly proceeded to ask more contextless questions in my incrementally increasing confusion. i do appologise.
Quote:
literaturativly .... retenisent
or,
Quote:
literaturativly?
rentenisten?
no, i don't think they were words, but my head was blasting around in the swirl from too much alphawave & beta brainwave activity and a whole host of unressolved issues leading to anger, frustration, impatience and wild moodswings besides. watched a few episodes of star trek and i'm feeling much better now.
ps, initiating the "build a bridge and get over myself" procedure, and making a mental note to stop posting dyslexia as it upsets the english teachers.
oh, but back to the point just so i don't come back to this. is the following correct?
installing a bootloader to the "Master Boot Record" won't necessarily mess up your boot. when people say "dont install a bootloader to MBR" they mean so that the bootloader already installed there won't get replaced.
i'll understand this now. especially when i see it all in action. sorry.
Yes, it depends on your configuration. If you already have a working boot manager, you should normally not overwrite the MBR. Instead, when you install an new OS, choose not to install the boot loader and configure the existing boot loader to launch the new OS.
If you already have a working boot manager, you should normally not overwrite the MBR.
Unless, of course, you prefer a different bootloader.
There is an option in many installers to install GRUB to a location other than MBR... but still to use GRUB (not the existing boot loader). The question is, why not install GRUB to MBR, if this is what you'll use?
The answer is, that some windows versions crash when the MBR does not contain the windows boot loader.
My personal take is that windows is more trouble than it's worth. Get rid of it.
Many times people are confused when they have a problem and don't necessarily know how to put it into words. The smart thing would be to ask for some more information and not close the thread straight away. We are here to help and learn, not to reprove newbies that might feel anxious or unsure. People tend to learn quickly how to ask a question if pointed at the right direction.
Which version of Windows is that? I know that Windows/386 through Windows Vista (beta) do not, so please enlighten us!
A fair question and deserving of an answer... I was, of course, relating hearsay. I have heard that it can mess up windows if you overwrite the mbr. (And, yes I have just modified my stance here...)
The obvious one is when something goes wrong with linux - like erasing the entire file system - then grub won't load and windows also becomes unbootable. (Solution being to boot from windows rescue disk and running fixboot or whatever it is.) http://help.lockergnome.com/index.ph...ded&show=&st=&
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
This thread is getting quite offtopic for WS&F. I'm going to go ahead and close it..if you'd like to continue the topic in the appropriate forum, please feel free.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.