From: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a LBA-related problem and a few docs patches
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:45:28 +0200
> I didn't say it isn't related to kernels. It is however more related to
> disks than to kernels.
Completely disagreed. When we talk about a disk, it is relevant only
about the installation, like other software. Often an OS is installed
into an OS-specific location (e.g. a bootable partition), but we don't
say that the OS manages a disk.
> Anyway, if you don't agree with "Disk management", perhaps changing to some
> other term would be better? For example "Booting"?
That sounds a bit more reasonable than "Disk management". But what
should we do about mbchk? The utility clearly belongs to the "Kernel"
section, but it is documented by the same file.
> And I (blindly) believe you. But my system indeed can do LBA, and I wish
> GRUB would see it too, somehow, without needing to recompile.
But don't forget that your BIOS has a bug in the LBA code. The spec
says that bit 0 in the support bitmap must be set if AH=42h, 43h, and
some others are supported. So the right thing is to fix your BIOS. The
configure option is to avoid the bug.
> BTW there's another small language issue in GRUB itself, with the setup
> command. When it runs `install [...]' command, it displays "Run install
> [...]", which is actually imperative, so one might think he then needs to
> run it manually (presuming it doesn't display an error of some sort).
Thanks. I've already fixed it, but I haven't checked it in.
BTW, you added a description about MBR into the tutorial, but the
URL is not available. What happens?
Okuji
