Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:26 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu During my 8 years of Linux on and off usage I have tried more distros than I have chocolate bars. Each one of my previous encounters meant that I had to spend at least 2 days configuring before I have a desktop that I was somewhat comfortable with. With Ubuntu Feisty Fawn's latest test beta --for the first time ever-- this was not the case. I was up and running with all the niceties I wanted within 2 hours.
Thread beginning with comment 222205
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: re: lemur2
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE: re: lemur2"
Member since:

I just wanted to thank you for attempting to help me. That was a very nice thing to do.

I may or may not attempt to use the information you have given me.

(I would have to print it out to read while I attempt the 10 minute install for the fourth time, as well as assume it is 100% correct)

As for your question: "Why do you think you need GRUB at all?"

The answer: The Mint Linux installer demands it. I tried typing in "/". I also tried deleting all text from the text field in the second install attempt.

In both cases, the Mint installer showed a "fatal error" due to a bad GRUB path. This conveniently occurs at the end of the 10-minute installation procedure.

I hoped that GRUB was not needed at all, and that perhaps I could just boot to my new Linux partition(s) anyway.

I re-ran my BeOS bootloader, which found all partitions by size AND name.... (Why is this SO hard for linux?)

After rebooting, I selected the Linux boot partition (named "Linux" by the friendly BeOS GUI), yet Linux would not boot.

I searched Google. All sources I have found regarding Ubuntu state that GRUB, in fact, MUST be installed on some partition, in order for Ubuntu to boot.

So basically, GRUB needs to be there. There is no good GUI provided to accommodate this. Searching Google, the Mint forums, and the Ubuntu forums, turns up too many complications, that occur too many hours into the install attempts.

It just shouldn't be this hard.

Some day soon, it will NOT be this hard. We are just not there yet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:48 in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
lemur2 Member since:

{So basically, GRUB needs to be there. There is no good GUI provided to accommodate this.}

For Ubuntu/Kubuntu, I think that is correct.

For a newbie-friendly Linux like PCLinuxOS, there is a GUI for GRUB.

The help here is applicable to most installations of GRUB.

BTW, getting back to apples-for-apples comparisons, GRUB can boot Linux and it can boot Windows, and it can also boot other OSes such as BeOS and ReactOS, whereas the Windows bootloader can only boot Windows.

So you are, of course, therefore far better off with GRUB.

Just install GRUB to the MBR of the primary HD drive (which is named either hd0 or hda) using the standard Linux GUI installers and you should be fine.

It isn't hard at all.

Edited 2007-03-17 11:54

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by pandronic on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:15 in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
pandronic Member since:

Why is this guy modded down? It's clear that he felt frustrated with the way partitions are named in Linux. Everyone who comes to the Linux world learns to cope with frustration until they get the hang of things, and even then there is an occasional incident that perplexes you.

I know, for me, it was hard to understand the whole hda, hdb stuff and the concept of mounting and I sympathize with this guy.

Actually, even now, after messing for some time with different Linux distros, I don't understand why you can access partitions like directories instead of drives (like in Windows). It sure seems more logical in Windows, even though I have to admit that Linux's way of doing things, even if it's more messy, offers more flexibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: re: lemur2
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:05 in reply to "RE[3]: re: lemur2"
superstoned Member since:

You're just used to the way windows has 'drives' and not just directories. The latter is imho more clear and works better... Like more things in linux. Often windows users (like I was, btw) are just used to the windows way, so when they see the linux way, it confuses them - even though the linux way is often superior. Don't underestimate the power of habit.

I once thought the whole layout in / was seriously messy. Now I don't even get the system windows has - apps can be found everywhere and nowhere. It seems they have a logical place (Program Files) but they don't - they also put files and things in other places, while you won't be able to start all apps from the commandline cuz it's pretty much impossible to adjust the %PATH for each installed app. Not putting binaries in one place is a serious mess, imho.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by DeadFishMan on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:23 in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
DeadFishMan Member since:

People tend to think of GRUB (and on the old days, LILO or even loadlin - does anyone here remember that one? ;) ) as a simple bootmanager such as those found on other OSes but it is actually required to bootstrap Linux.

So in order to use another bootmanager, you will have to resort to what is called chainloading on Linux. You most likely need to install GRUB on the same partition that you installed Linux and then configure the other bootmanager to bootstrap that partition. GRUB will take care of the rest.

As for the nomenclature for the disk drives and partitions, I'll have to agree with you. Never understood why GRUB uses its own and unique naming scheme and don't really care for the reasons; it is confusing. I still think that LILO was much better than GRUB in this regard (It was much simpler to use and understand!). But you can safely follow the tips that the parent poster gave to you. That should fix your problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2