Slashdot Mirror
The Boot Loader Showdown
Francesca writes "What utility do practically all Linux users use, regardless of their job or expertise? A boot loader. In this article from IBM, see how a boot loader works, meet two popular loaders -- LILO (LInux LOader) and GNU GRUB (GRand Unified Boot loader) -- and review the pros and cons of each." From the article: "Most simply, a boot loader loads the operating system. When your machine loads its operating system, the BIOS reads the first 512 bytes of your bootable media (which is known as the master boot record, or MBR). You can store the boot record of only one operating system in a single MBR, so a problem becomes apparent when you require multiple operating systems. Hence the need for more flexible boot loaders."
I use AMD64 Gentoo, dual booting with Windows XP Pro. Of course, LILO doesn't work with AMD64, so I have to use Grub. The bad part here is that Grub hangs whenever I try to get it to load Windows. I don't think it likes a 32 bit kernel image. So.... I have to go into the BIOS and change primary boot drives everytime I want to switch. I want a bootloader that can do that for me, or at least a way to make Grub do it. (Of course, I never really boot into Windows...)
Given all the concern with rootkits, backdoors, worms, spyware, et al, it would seem that a nonflash-ROM bootloader could provide a secure micro-OS that in turn checks and helps maintain the integrity of the main OS. A boot-time diagnostic and some key read-only API code segments (encompassing access to crucial functions such as encryption, hash calculation, memory access, disk access, UI access, network access, etc.) would help ensure that the main OS was not compromised and was less susceptible to malware.
A small OS, even one with a GUI, can fit in less than a MB. Perhaps a heavily secured, stripped-down copy of some stable version of *nix could provide a high-integrity read-only core underlying a more sophisticated, extensible, and flexible full-featured OS.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
- Mac OS X will bring some of the most tech-phobic users to Intel in mid-2006 and much will be talked about setting up one's computer to boot different OS's if there is no "Red Box" included.
- Boot loaders are a big security point of failure and may rise again as a popular exploit if easier targets like Word Macros ever die off. IMHO knowledge is better protection than ignorance though.
- Declining interest in boot loaders could solidify Microsoft's goal of being the only OS people want to use. Open Source boot loaders aim for versatility; Microsoft aims for extreme ease of use and zero versatility. If the first chapter of every linux install book is how to troubleshoot your boot loader; this is great at maintaining Windows monopoly.
Boot loaders aren't really sexy, but they are important. Hence any article that tries to build some interest in them is a good thing (even if this one may have some imperfections in it).GRUB rocks. Its just too easy to render a computer unbootable with LILO (not permanently, of course; but it's still annoying). Why should I have to rewrite the boot sector just because I want to change what I call a particular boot option?
Interesting to hear of people's GRUB problems with Windows - I've never had an issue with this. My dual boot machines have been 98SE or XP Pro alongside Red Hat or Fedora. GRUB setup works out of the box. I've got to admit I've only used multiple partitions on one disk though - never done it with different OSes on different disks.
#DeleteChrome