I liked my first linux distro so much i thought id install a second one. This morning i installed Freespire on a ReiserFS partition and Dual booted using BootPart. the commandline said it worked but when i tryed to boot it it gives me a bootpart error message to enter the SystemDisk. I entered the Freespire disk and it just brings me back to install it. I also tryed this with Zenwalk and i got the same issue. Does any one know why this is happening and what i can do to fix it? Am i even able to Triple Boot (or quadruple or more) using BootPart?

Any one know? I've waited almost 3 days for a reply:|

Thank you for being patient. I would guess that nobody else uses Bootpart, and so can not answer your question. I just use Grub, so I know nothing about BootPart. But I see that they have a support forum, so maybe you should try there?.

Yeah, sorry. I don't use bootpart. After reading the following thread, I think I can give some advice.

http://forum.winimage.com/viewtopic.php?t=2439

It appears that Bootpart simply passes the boot process to the bootloader on the Linux partition.

Do you know if the bootloader, either Lilo, or GRUB got installed to the freespire partition. I would recommend asking for more information on the freespire forum.

I haven't used it either. I have read something a while back about it. I prefer GRUB, when I get a distro that's packaged with LILO, I change it to GRUB.

No GRUB wasnt installed. But new problem. Related to this. I installed my Ubuntu 7 yesterday and i installed GRUB to a floppy. so i can boot into ubuntu with the floppy but thats about it. Now theres supposed to be some magical way to create a magical file that i will store on my magical windows that i can add to my magical boot.ini that will magically quad boot ubuntu. at the moment im triple booting with DellUtility, XP, and Xandros.

So in other words how do i pull the bootloader off the floppy(the files are hidden i cant even see them even wen i allow hiddens) and turn it into a file that i can add to C:\ and apparently add to boot.ini whichll boot it.

You are using bootpart right? there should be instructions for adding OS's to it's list somewhere on the internet.

Have you tried this yet?



I got those instructions from;

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

....im kind of lost in that =P. I have GRUB installed at the beginning of the partition hda5 and the bootloader is in /boot/grub and somefiles that are just in /boot. i used partition 5 with bootpart and i just get that error. theres this thing i downloaded from the ubuntu site..well not a download a text...and it says with a code they gave me i can pull off GRUB from my floppy and trun it into a file called bootsect.lnx which i can then throw onto the c drive and boot off of with boot.ini

ill show youthe code..i tryed but it doesent work...seems a little faulted but how should i know..

dd if=/dev/fd0 of=bootsect.lnx bs=512 count=1

where I think the problem is.../dev/fd0 on my personal ubuntu is that i cant open up /dev/hd0 its called /floppy0 and also thefiles on the floppy are really hidden..even when i enable my hiddens i cant find them..but i still can boot off the disk? maybe GRUB is like formatted on it? and i think it might be pulling off a blank file and turning it into bootsect.lnx because floppys blank. Would there be a way maybe to turn the files on /boot/grub into bootsect.lnx?

I wish Windows would make everyones life easy and just allow linux to be installed on them...*sigh*

Did you install windows after a linux distro was all ready on there?

A hard drive can support up to 4 OS's. If one of the partitions all ready had Grub on it, that may be where your problem lies. However, Grub can "see" all OS's and flag the right stuff to boot from it. If you installed Windows after a linux/BSD/MAC OS, then windows bootloader overwrites and refuses to acknowledge anything BUT windows OS's.

Theoretically, you should be able to reinstall GRUB on any linux partition and it should fix it...it's not always that nice though and I certainly am not recommending you do this...yet.

no windows was on and then i put on ubuntu. the 4 OS's are, WINDOWS, DELLUTILITY, Xandros, Ubuntu, and a SWAP....thats 5...hmm...SWAP must have something to do...i CAN delete dell utility...if ineed to..or SWAP...GRUB detects my OS's all of them when i boot off my GRUB floppy. GRUB is installed on Ubuntu,i just need a way to turn grub into a file that i can put in my boot order.

Don't delete the swap partition. The only limit to partitions is the amount of space you have on your hard drive. you can partition away all day long. 4 OS's is the max because of the bios and booting and boot sector space, and a number of other things. If windows was on there first, and everything seemed to work, you should just try to reinstall Grub. A quick google search should be able to get you all the info you need on that. For the most part, it's just booting into linux (in your case Ubuntu) and using synaptic to reinstall grub. Or, I can't remember if Ubuntu's disk has it, a grub repair option. Either way, that should take care of it.

Im not using GRUB im using the windows bootloader. On the ubuntu partition grub is on there and for sure it is installed. maybe ill try to reinstall ubuntu...

Apparently, you can edit bootpart so that it will see other OS's. It's supposed to be here: Q289022. Of course that is for XP. You shouldn't need to reinstall Ubuntu, Just the boot manager (GRUB).

Or install Lilo...

ahh fixed it the code i was using i forgot to use the 'sudo' command...copied bootsect.lnx to a flash drive..saved onto xp and can now boot off it

My biggest pet peeve about Ubuntu. Having to use the "sudo" command, before each root command.

Why can't I just type 'su' once, and be done with it? That is why I don't use Ubuntu.

Use Debian and you can.

Anyway, here's how to make that work in Ubuntu.

If you want a permanent root prompt, type this command
$ sudo -i
or
$ sudo -i -H

FYI:
It is possible to open (unlock) the root account by giving it a password or using the passwd -u option.

$ sudo passwd root
passwd: xxxxxxxx

And su - command will now work.
$ su -

BUT KEEP IT LOCKED AND BE SAFE.
Do:
$ sudo passwd root -l

pfft i got rid of ubuntu..it made meangry..it made me yell alot..so inuked it..nowi have PCLinuxOS and im gonna install another distro tommorow. Any reccomendations?

No recommendations, but sort of curious for the need to have multiple distros installed. Why? Linux is Linux, so why not use one, and actually learn how to use it. If you had issues with Ubuntu, what value is gained by giving up on it? To me, that is an opportunity to learn something about the operating system.

But that's just me.

Xandros.

Hands down, it is my favorite. It does not have as many packages available, but it is a good solid distribution. It has very good hardware detection, top notch networking capabilities, and it is very familiar to Windows users. Xandros uses "older" packages. These older packages are guaranteed to be stable, since they have had a chance to prove themselves stable. Which means that they work.

I could be using Ubuntu 6.10, or Ubuntu 7.04, but instead I use Xandros 3. An old KDE 3.3.0 based distribution that has served me faithfully for some time now. I will move away from it with a heavy heart, when the Xandros 3, and Debian Sarge repositories are shutdown.

There is just something about Xandros that keeps me coming back. I might venture out, in order to check out some new feature (beryl), but I always return to Xandros.

I am inclined to agree with Groovicus. Linux is linux, regardless of what distro you have. If you have difficulty learning an aspect of it, you'll find it matters not what distro you have, but instead a need to improve a particular skill. Ubuntu does make things easier than many, but so far, I have seen nothing in it that Debian really doesn't all ready do. Anyway, I don't understand about all these 3 linux + 1 Win systems anyway. It seems to me, they're just splitting up te hard drives into miniscule unusable spaces. Some people like that though, more power to them. I'll stick with a nix only or a 1 win + 1 nix box.

I have to disagree here. It is difficult to do so, without getting into semantics, but Linux is not just Linux. If Linux was just Linux, then why are we not using RedHat? There are big differences between Debian, and RedHat. As well as differences between those two, and the distros based on them.

Each one has its own quirks, and advantages. No distribution is for everyone. Ubuntu offers a complete package, and support, with more cutting edge software. It times its releases with Gnome, so each release will have a newer version of Gnome. Debian's installer has not been very user friendly, and it is not quite as tied together as a desktop distribution.

Puppy Linux, or D.S.L are great portable distributions, but I would not use them for a desktop distribution.

Xandros offers CrossOver integration, and tweaks, and for-cost software that increase Windows compatibility. Which is great for networks where Windows is required. But Xandros is not for those who need a true Open solution, or want more cutting edge features.


This statement is True. From your own point of view...

Why are some aspects of a particular distro, more difficult than a similar aspect of another distro. Would you say that a home user should learn how to use aptitude, when synaptic is available on another distro???

No, if an aspect of a "home" distro is difficult to learn, then that aspect should be corrected.

not the fact i didnt understand ubuntu its that i just didnt like the distro. I had Xandros for awhile i just nuked it. i installed zenwalk and that was kind of plain, and my CENTOS4 w. TrixBox cd is frozen on 85%. Ill retry CENTOS again tommorow. My focus right now is to understand linux itself, its programs, and the whole dual, triple, and boot up stuff. When i get good at all that im gonna start working with linux codes and commands and some BASH. I only really installed ubuntu cuz i saw some nice books on it. OpenSuSE looks and sounds pretty good, what do you think about that?

That is a distro. I wasn't talking about the fluff that goes with it, but rather that bash is bash, no matter the distro. ls is ls, ln is ln, etc., etc.. There is a difference between learning how to use a distro, and learning how to use Linux. Or for that matter, using a bunch of different distros and saying that one 'knows how' to use a particualr distro.

If one has a problem with Ubuntu (otherwise why would one yell a lot and get mad) which is arguably one of the most user friendly distros, then I would suggest that some time needs to be spent on the basics, like learning how to install something without using a package manager. How to build something from source. You're right though, Puppy is a nice portable distro, but it could be used for a workstation or a server, providing one knew some basics. I wouldn't use F.I.R.E. for a server, but one could.

Bash, is Bash? Technically...

Vi, emacs, nano? The basics are too basic. 'man' 'mv' 'cd' 'ls' 'cp', './configure' [sic], 'make && make install'. Basically it is just the differences between Bash, and DOS. Many simple things in Linux require the use of software that can vary between distributions. Such as the aforementioned editors, or 'yum' vs 'apt', or 'urpmi' or 'emerge'. Not to mention the fact that some of those programs change every few years. Then there is 'su', and 'sudo'. Simple configuration changes can change the whole way of using BASH. Whether it is BSD, Linux, MacOS X, or another *Nix flavor. Bash is Bash, but that doesn't mean you will automatically be able to use Bash on another distro/OS.

AS for "vi, emacs, and nano", I prefer Midnight Commander.


On another note. having grown up in a Windows world, I don't want to teach a new Linux user how to compile anything. That is 100% opposite of my goal. Which is to provide them with the easiest, GUI "only" distribution available. It is sometimes difficult to shift gears.

@moomoo, OpenSuse is a good choice. However, might I recommend "Fedora Core". It is a little more cutting edge, and has a large repository of software. It would be a good distribution to learn more about Linux on.

I do recommend using a Debian based distribution, combined with an RPM distribution, such as OpenSuse, Fedora Core, or Mandriva. You may even want to try Gentoo. Gentoo allows you to easily compile most programs. However easy it is, it still takes a lot longer to install both the OS, and the programs, for a "possible" speed increase.

Monster, ou have answered your own arguement with your arguement.

Linux is Linux, it's a kernel, nothing more or less. So yes, it doesn't matter whether it's redhat, debian, gentoo, and on and on. The kernel is the same kernel regardless of the clothes it wears. True, each distro customizes the kernel a bit, but it doesn't actually change the kernel itself, only the packages that are included in that distro.

As far as aptitude, synaptic, Yast or whatever else, they are all front ends for a distribution, not for linux. It makes it easier for a "home" user who maybe isn't do proficient, or even a skilled user who just doesn't want to take the time to do it manually. Bust open the man pages for linux (not the distro, the actual kernel) and I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

You are 100% correct, not all distros are for everyone and no single distro is for everyone. But, there is a distro which is suited to anybody, if they take the time to find it, and they know what it is exactly they want. That aspect of linux doesn't need fixing, the versatility of many distros with different but similar package handlings are one of the many reasons it's a secure OS.

Remember Linux + Desktop + file manager + packages for a distro = an OS. So the possibilities are endless.

too bad..compiling is what i have trouble..ALOT of trouble with..i actually HATE compiling. i took your advice to narrow it down to one distro..so i ahve PCLinuxOS on an 8gig partition, im downloading BSD and im gonna test that..then OpenSuSE

If you want, we can give you some pointers. Depends on how much you hate compiling. Once you start to understand it, it becomes a necessary nuisance. You will still have to track down this file, and that file. IT is also time consuming. No amount of teaching will change the facts, but it is a handy skill to have.

Ahhh, compiling and resolving dependencies the old fashioned way....Thank gawd those days are going away! Really though, the biggest part is to learn what to ignore on all that verbose output that keeps scrolling across your screen. Linux loves to complain...

well i can sit down and try it myself for about half an hour before i just give up. I know im supposed to follow the instructions in INSTALL folder...the problem is theres so many files and i just get confused on what to ignore and what to put in BASH...they all have similair names..and its a skill i really want...theres a bunch of nice linux programs i want but they all need to be compiled..

can any of you can give me some pointers?

Yeah. Most open source programs use a standard install method. "./configure, make , make install".

You simply 'cd' into the program's folder from a console, and then type './configure'. Watch the output, ignoring errors untill it stops. Then check the last error, and see if you can figure out what that item is. Figure out what the last item that came up "no" was, or that followed a "configure error" message. Copy the line into a search box, and see what comes up. Usually you will need to install another package, or some 'dev' tools, or 'headers'.

Rinse and repeat until './configure' completes successfully, then type 'make'. Then switch over to a root console 'su', and type 'make install'.




The configure error is what you want, but the information after it may contain some usefull information, if you can understand it.

Another thing you can do is to post the output of a configure error, on a forum, such as BleepingComputer.com, and ask for help. Remember to also post the distro your using, including its version.

the instructions i saw for a program awhile ago were sort of like

make distclean
make
(as root) make install

ill try your way when i get myself a package

It varies from package to package. Most of the more universal packages require a './configure'. Simpler programs only require a 'make && make install'.

'make distclean' is a precautionary step. It removes out any bad 'make' files, giving you a clean slate. It is probably a good idea to run it.

'make distclean'
'./configure'
'make'
# 'make install'

[i]Note, the "#" indicates the command is to be used as the administrator/root, or using 'sudo' in Ubuntu/OS X.

If you type:

sudo bash

in the terminal, you just enter you password, then you dont even need to use the "su" command anymore.

And I'm quad booting so it shouldnt be an issue.

Or sudo bash.

Thanks bilko.

i have a debian disk, i found it confusing to install ( for my linux noobiness =P). And i (if applicable) always use the Root account on my linux's. i find it easier to perform all the system tasks and stuff but the install tells me not to use it.. how come?

Security.

If a hacker, or virus compromises your system while you are running as root, it could bring the whole system down. It would have full control over your computer, because you have full control. Plus the settings you are allowed to change, and the files you are allowed to delete could prevent your system from working.

A user account allows you to perform most tasks, and anything that infects the computer will only affect that account. So you would not have to reinstall.

never thought about it...meh there arent many Linux viruses are there?

all the linux viruses I know of only effect a particular file and a particular version of that as well. Most are aimed at server (particularly mail) applications. Even then, it has to be a particular distro, of a particular version, with a particular package which contains a particular file, then you have to install it... And, you would have to install the virus as well. They are out there, but the risk of infection is incredibly low and unlikely, for now.

The reposnible thing to do though is to maintain a virus scanner on your *nix box so that you aren't propegating them. Just because the virus doesn't affect your system, does not in any way mean you haven't had it written to a document or email you may pass on. When that virus finally hits a machine with the OS it was designed to infect, it will work.

Of course, that's only one mentality. There are many *nix users who feel that they shouldn't use it to protect others who choose to use a system vulnerable to infection.