Maybe using one loader as the primary loader and the other one as the
secondary loader..with one of them on the mbr and the other in the
/boot partition might work out
On 12/8/06, Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:50:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:23:35PM -0500, Jos? Alburquerque wrote:
> > Yes, you're right about that. GRUB can be installed in any BR (of any
> > partition) and in that way grub and lilo *are not* mutually exclusive.
> > But if you're planning on installing grub or lilo on the mbr then I
> > think that they indeed are mutually exclusive. (Am I right on this?)
>
> I was considering installing both grub and lilo to MBR -- but MBRs of
> different disk drives -- Lilo to /dev/fd0, and grub to /dev/hda.
> Then I can determine which gets used by pushing the floppy disk in or
> out. My question was really whether the two conflict anywhere *else*
> but the MBR.
I don't think so. as I understand it, lilo essentially hardcodes the
location of the kernel when you write it to the BR while grub actually
reads the file systems on booting. I know that I have booted a lilo
system using a grub floppy. I see no reason why the reverse wouldn't work.
A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFea1kaIeIEqwil4YRAko4AKCff/oICHOu8G35lR9GNjVTeulAzACglaFx
6zdRErrlThZWNxuylUwnM00=
=pXUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
With Regards Ali Jawad
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
