Slashdot Mirror
Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista
An anonymous reader writes, "NeoSmart Technologies has just released EasyBCD 1.5, complete with support for Vista, Windows NT/2k/XP, and Windows 9x/ME. EasyBCD 1.5 adds experimental support for dual-booting any of these along with Linux, Mac OS X, or BSD — straight from the Windows Vista bootloader without any additional configuration needed!" From the article: "Windows Vista's new bootmanager is a double-edged sword. It's one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence, and a far cry from the very limiting boot.ini of legacy Windows operating systems. But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought, and doesn't provide any means for users of alternate operating systems and boot managers to use their old system. That's where EasyBCD 1.5 comes in!" EasyBCD 1.5 is free.
I know its possible to boot BSD, Vista, XP, and OSX if you use Grub->>Vista Bootloader->>NTLDR (to load bsd/osx, vista, and XP respectively). However, knowing that I can skip grub (no offense. I just didn't feel comfortable using it) is great news!
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
I don't see what's so impressive about Vista's bootloader, unless you're simply comparing it to prior MS versions. What would be cool is if Microsoft released software that allowed someone to simultaneously open multiple O/S's at the same time in a non-virtualized environment. Imagine being able to switch back and forth between Linux and Windows simply by hitting a keystroke?
With the advent of dual core chips and O/S support for these chips, this doesn't seem all that difficult. Isn't Apple already doing it?
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
> It (BCD) is one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence...
I'm curious if this statement is more than marketing speak. What's so great about BCD?
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. Here's the real list
1. Breaking the law
2. Having an install which might not work right
I'd love to easily run alternative OSes on my home PC alongside Windows XP, but I can't because my hard drive is a SATA-RAID array. I've been unable to find any straightforward way to get bootloaders (such as GRUB) or alternative OSes (such as Linux) to install on, address, and boot from an SATA-RAID array (aka "fakeRAID"). Some limited support is available in Linux using "dmraid", but apparently you have to be a command-line expert with significant Linux-Fu powers to set that up, and all it will allow you to do is boot up GRUB from a non-SATA-RAID drive and then use it to boot Windows from a SATA-RAID array. No distribution I've found appears to deal well (or at all) with installing Linux to and multi-booting Linux from an SATA-RAID array that already has Windows on it.
This is a huge impediment to people installing and using Linux on modern systems, as motherboard-based SATA-RAID is becoming increasingly common (especially in higher-end home/gaming PCs). The only workaround I've found is to install a spare non-RAID drive and make it bootable to Linux, and then go change the motherboard's BIOS to boot off that drive instead of the RAID array, which is a major PITA just to choose which OS you want to boot.
So my question is, does the Vista bootloader allow booting of non-Windows OSes off of the SATA-RAID array that Vista is installed on? Does EasyBCD really make it easy to host and boot multiple OSes off a single SATA-RAID array? If so, that opens up the door to more easily dual-booting Linux on modern systems.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
What if he is like me and already has a working, tweeked and otherwise perfected install of linux running. I'm sure there has to be an easier way then trashing that, installing windows first then rebuilding your linux install.
Personaly, I choose to instal lilo onto a floppy (the boot code). Then go in later and move it to the hard drive. This allows me to boot to a boot disk and streight into linux if neccesary. Also it allows for a backup of lilo's config in case windows trashes the partition linux is on.
Something i'm wondering is, Did microsoft do this in order to screw open source boot loaders and make the act of dual booting into a free operating system more dificult? It apears that the site is down for the EasyBCD loader. I cannot tell if it is free as in opensource free or just free as in no costs for now free. It could directly effect the way some distro's are compatible with VIsta.
I'm also wondering if the "opensource" free version if any, would be GPLv3 compatible because microsoft will no doubtly have certain levels of pattents pertaining to the vista boot loader that the EasyBCD guys might not be able to control enough to be GPLv3 compliant. Not to mention that newer microsoft OS's typicly create a volume serial number that is tied into booting and operation of the OS. This is most evident when cloning drives and when it doesn't keep the corect serial you get errors on booting. How would this be effected by the ANTI-TIVO type wording in the GPLv3 when a GPLed product is working with the code or programs? I Think some clearification might be in order on this. I have raised simular questions before with products like Itunes and Hardware that locks certain performances out in cheaper versions and the answer is always, they shouldn't be doing that or the Closed app should be open. I'm sure booting to vista in a free way might be more important then forcing apple to opensource Itunes in order to keep a GPLv3 frontend compatible with the GPL.
An no, I'm not trolling. These are legit concerns with the GPLv3 brought up by others too. I'm just putting them into relvent terms that can be related to in this context. It would suck donkey balls if GPLv3 licensed bootloaders are incompatible to dual booting with microsoft operating systems because of this. Especial when the entire idea behind the changes is to control the manufacturers hardware with previous versions of the GPL claims is outside the GPL's scope.
Okay, so that link was the opposite of what I claimed, but this one describes the right process.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Uh... the windows installer doesn't trash the entire linux install (or even the bootloader). It just overwrites the MBR to point it at the windows bootloader instead of whatever was there before. Incidentally, this is exactly what the linux bootloaders do when they're installed. The "easier way" that you're looking for is to simply overwrite Windows' MBR entry with one that points back at the bootloader that you wanted.
It turns out that you're close. The simplest way of fixing the MBR after the windows installer overwrites it is to have some bootable media (floppy, CD, USB Drive, whatever) with your bootloader of choice on it. Use that to boot your system, and reinstall it to the MBR.
I don't speak lilo, but in grub it looks like:
root (hd0,0) (or whichever partition grub is installed on)
setup (hd0)
The whole procedure takes a couple of minutes, and it's much easier than having to re-install linux as all your settings and whatnot are preserved by virtue of never having gone anywhere in the first place.