XOSL, an alternative to Lilo and Grub
WhyPanic writes "XOSL, the Extended Operating System Loader, is a free (as in beer and as in GPL), full featured, graphical boot loader that can work in conjunction with Lilo or separately to boot all varieties of Windows, Linux, and many other OS's." Nifty looking.
Since I noticed it i'll mention it. The topic should be LILO and Grub. Not LILO amd Grub! Meh...
Life is like pants... fit in or you don't fit in.
XOSL won't load your kernel. You still need a Linux boot loader to do that. So, no, XOSL isn't an alternative to Lilo and Grub. I tried it a long time ago hoping to oust Lilo.
Thier website still says:
XOSL is known to support
[...]
Linux (with Lilo)
Lets see what I can remember about this.
That's pretty much all I remember about it... I hope that gives you and idea of what Xosl is like.
I read the internet for the articles.
from their FAQ:
"Installing GNU/Linux
If you're installing Linux, install LILO in the Linux partition's boot sector (superblock). You can safely ignore the warning that says you won't be able to boot Linux. XOSL can do the job."
this mean the hassle of running lilo everytime you recompile the kernel still exists with XOSL.
I rather use grub. don't need to rerun it every new kernel and it allows me to edit entries in the menu during boot...
What ? Me, worry ?
There hasn't even been a new version released since December 2000. (Which happens to be when I looked at it and realized how cool it is.) Not only is this the wrong kind of news for Slashdot, it's not even news.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
If there's only a single OS listed in boot.ini, then no boot menu is given. (What would be the point?) The bootloader just boots it without prompting.
By default, Windows is the only one it lists. (No surprise there.) I copied my Linux bootsector to BOOTSECT.LNX, added another line to boot.ini, and then I had a choice at boot time: Windows 2000, or Linux. To do all this I followed the mini-HOWTO at linuxdoc.org; that HOWTO is now several years old, I believe. It was originally written for NT 4.something.
Your article is complete uninformed flamebait.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I stumbled across it while trying to put NT (not my decision) onto a machine that had previously had Linux and LILO on it. For some reason, NT wouldn't install it's bootloader over LILO, and LILO wouldn't boot to NT, because I couldn't configure it because Linux was no longer on the machine. So I installed XOSL, and everything worked.