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've always found bcd quite easy. just throw away a large fraction of the legitimate encodings...wait, what?
"But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought...."
Well, who would have expected Microsoft to do that?
This one won't make it to the gold master.
Kind of like stealing from a Las Vegas casino. Won't happen.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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?
So... any particular reason why BCD instead of GRUB or Lilo? I don't get it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
...you can't "boot OS X" on non-Apple hardware without:
1. Breaking Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which says that Mac OS X is to be run only on Apple-branded computers
2. Pirating Mac OS X (Intel), since Mac OS X (Intel) is not available as a standalone OS at present
3. Running a horribly hacked version of Mac OS X, with critical pieces of the system modified, including the kernel
4. Running Mac OS X in an unupdateable state, since any official Apple software updates that overwrite modified pieces of the hacked version of Mac OS X will break it
5. Running Mac OS X in a state completely unsupported by its vendor
6. Possibly violating civil or criminal law in your jurisdiction
I hope that most people can find at least *one* of the above items that would make them reconsider running Mac OS X (Intel) on a generic PC without paying for it (some will no doubt argue that they should be able to "reuse" PowerPC licenses for Mac OS X in spirit, but the fact is that it's not the same product - that's like saying that you at one time owned one software product from a company that's similar, so you should be able to use this other one/newer version/older version/different version for free). I'm sure others will come up with all sorts of justifications why it's okay.
But isn't all of the billions of dollars or R&D and hundreds of thousands of manhours invested in Mac OS X worth something? What if their pricing is predicated on what is essentially a good faith agreement that you'll not hack it and run it on non-Apple hardware? Does Apple have ANY say in how they'd prefer it to be used?
I could go on, of course, but just thought this was worth mentioning.
already slashdoted
microsoft overwrote it...
Downloaded it just to check the license (yeah, I'm odd about this crap)
It's freeware. Sorta looks like a Creative Commons license, but basically it's just plain old freeware.
4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to, this License with every copy of the Work You distribute, and only with the permission of the Licensor & Original Author. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.
b. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
c. If you distribute the Work, You must obtain permission from and let the Original Author know, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (and/or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; and to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner.
Apple and the U.S. government established the anti-boot laws to keep people from booting OS X.
... what?
I'm sorry
Are you posting from the future, where the world has been decimated by killer iPods or something?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
LOL Silicone Valley...I think Pirates of Silicone Valley was a porn flick...you're thinking of Pirates of Silicon Valley.
I had to replace my MBR for it to work, since I had loaded grub into it.
So I tried to boot into Linux. I must say, I don't remember Linux being a blank screen. I seem to recall it being more interactive...
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
" Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista"
That's not "from" Vista, it's despite Vista.
--
make install -not war