Re: Question about Linux

From: Rod Smith (rodsmith_at_nessus.rodsbooks.com)
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:46:03 -0000

In article <41da4e23$0$6542$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
        Daeron <daeron@some.net> writes:
>
> Rod Smith wrote:
>> Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. In fact,
>> Linux is much more flexible about where it can be installed than are most
>> x86 OSs.
>
> Much more than Most ?
> More than Solaris?, FreeBSD? NetBSD? than BeOS was? than OS/2 was before
> that?. . . .
> . . . in fact, WHICH are the multitude of OS's which are LESS flexible than
> Linux?

DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all spring to mind as
being very inflexible -- they all require installation to a primary
partition. I'm not sure about Solaris (it's been a while since I
installed it). Linux isn't more flexible in installation partitions than
OS/2 per se, but OS/2's boot manager is definitely quite limiting
compared to LILO or GRUB. I've never used NetBSD, so I can't comment on
it. BeOS is pretty flexible, on a par with Linux in this respect.

> IN fact one of the reasons that I rejected Linux as an alternate x86 OS in
> 1998 was that each of the "disto" that it came in all wanted to create
> Microsoft "partitions" on the hard drive --

Most OSs do in fact reside in partitions, on x86 or other platforms with
which I'm familiar. I'm not sure what you mean by "Microsoft
'partitions,'" with the word "partitions" in quotes. Do you mean primary
partitions? If so, that may be the default for some Linux installers, but
certainly not for all of them, and it can be overridden for most. In fact,
Linux can reside on primary or logical partitions on the first or any
subsequent disk, so long as the BIOS can read it. Given the x86 partition
table, you can't get more flexible than that, at least not in terms of
installation partitions.

> For that matter, how many viable OS's are left for x86 anyway?
> It's a dying platform.

If you don't consider AMD64 to be in the x86 line, then yes; but AMD64
OSs generally still use the old x86 partitioning scheme. If you consider
AMD64 to be part of the x86 line, then I'd have to disagree with your
assessment that the platform is dying.

> I have to suspect that your main reference outside of Linux is Microsoft,
> and that in your mind it constitutes "most" OS's.?

Wrong you are. I've literally written a book on the subject of
multi-booting:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/multiboot/ 

-- 
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mandrake 10.0 download and install
    ... page that pops up to the list of mirrors. ... For a 1st try at Linux, I wouldn't worry much about customizing your ... These partitions and sizes have worked well for me using ... If you want share files with your Windoze installation, ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Restoring MBR after uninstalling *nix dual boot setup
    ... >>version of LINUX with a graphical LILO boot manager. ... >>I can delete the ext2 partitions easily enough with some ... Each time I have removed a dual-boot with a Linux distro, ... Boot using your XP installation CD ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: 8.04 dual-boot w/ XP: - installation problems
    ... However, on booting, and entering grub, the only OSs listed are Ubuntu: ... Linux... ... what partitions are seen on that disk. ... i.e. your installation and data will be gone. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Question about Linux
    ... >> Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. ... >> x86 OSs. ... Linux isn't more flexible in installation partitions than ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Question about Linux
    ... >> Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. ... >> x86 OSs. ... Linux isn't more flexible in installation partitions than ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)