multiple OSs

multiple OSs

[Subhash Bhushan]

I have two HDs on one of my systems. Now, I would like to install Novell, 
Freebsd, Windows and Linux on it. Is it possible? If it is, then is there 
any restriction as to which should be installed first and which last?
  If it is not possible, then which is the best combination of OSs that I 
can have? Windows, linux and freebsd? or windows, linux and Novell? Which is 
easier to maintain?
  Just a doubt that I have wanted to clear for a long time :)
  Thanks in advance,

  Subhash.





_________________________________________________________________
Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql 
Meet@Shaadi.com

RE: multiple OSs

[Anthony Nguyen]

I don't know for novell (if it has a particularity with MBR, I've never
installed it) but for the other OS you can install all of them with most of
boot loaders.

Basically, you have to:
	- divide your HD in multiple partitions (1 for win, 1 for Linux, 1
for its swap ... etc)
	- install each of the OS
	- boot under Linux (if you want to use grub or lilo as boot loader)
	- configure lilo or grub so when you'll boot, you'll have a menu
that will be displayed so you can choose what OS you want to boot on

Usually I keep a "boot" floppy disk to boot on Linux (once I've installed
it), just in case that I install an OS which I don't know how to configure
the boot loader.

Lilo is easy to configure and you'll find many tutorials to help you to
configure it, while grub may seem a little bit harder to configure but can
be reconfigured at his prompt.

I don't get what you mean by "Which is easier to maintain?".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-admin-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Subhash Bhushan
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 8:19 AM
> To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
> 
> I have two HDs on one of my systems. Now, I would like to install Novell,
> Freebsd, Windows and Linux on it. Is it possible? If it is, then is there
> any restriction as to which should be installed first and which last?
>   If it is not possible, then which is the best combination of OSs that I
> can have? Windows, linux and freebsd? or windows, linux and Novell? Which
> is
> easier to maintain?
>   Just a doubt that I have wanted to clear for a long time :)
>   Thanks in advance,
> 
>   Subhash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql
> Meet@Shaadi.com
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: multiple OSs

[Jim C. Brown]

I prefer Lilo to grub myself, the one thing Grub has going for it is that
you dont need to reinstall it every time you upgrade your linux kernel.

One gotcha to watch out for ... many WindowsOSes tend to overwrite the MBR,
so you should install the Windows OS first, then the others, and then the boot
loader (so poor Lilo or Grub or whatever you choose doesnt get overwritten).

Also, all OSes have their flaws ... Linux and FreeBSD can be complicated to setup
sometimes, but they rarely crash so bizarelly as the MS OSes do. (I have no
information about Novell's OS, sorry.) Or did you mean something else
by "which is easier to maintain" ?

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 09:55:05PM +0200, Anthony Nguyen wrote:
> I don't know for novell (if it has a particularity with MBR, I've never
> installed it) but for the other OS you can install all of them with most of
> boot loaders.
> 
> Basically, you have to:
> 	- divide your HD in multiple partitions (1 for win, 1 for Linux, 1
> for its swap ... etc)
> 	- install each of the OS
> 	- boot under Linux (if you want to use grub or lilo as boot loader)
> 	- configure lilo or grub so when you'll boot, you'll have a menu
> that will be displayed so you can choose what OS you want to boot on
> 
> Usually I keep a "boot" floppy disk to boot on Linux (once I've installed
> it), just in case that I install an OS which I don't know how to configure
> the boot loader.
> 
> Lilo is easy to configure and you'll find many tutorials to help you to
> configure it, while grub may seem a little bit harder to configure but can
> be reconfigured at his prompt.
> 
> I don't get what you mean by "Which is easier to maintain?".
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-admin-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Subhash Bhushan
> > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 8:19 AM
> > To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > I have two HDs on one of my systems. Now, I would like to install Novell,
> > Freebsd, Windows and Linux on it. Is it possible? If it is, then is there
> > any restriction as to which should be installed first and which last?
> >   If it is not possible, then which is the best combination of OSs that I
> > can have? Windows, linux and freebsd? or windows, linux and Novell? Which
> > is
> > easier to maintain?
> >   Just a doubt that I have wanted to clear for a long time :)
> >   Thanks in advance,
> > 
> >   Subhash.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql
> > Meet@Shaadi.com
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
 /"\  ASCII ribbon              | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
 \ /  campain against           | Linux User:190064
  X   HTML in e-mail and        | Linux Machine:84163
 /*\  news, and unneeded MIME   | 

Re: multiple OSs

[terry white]

... ciao:

    while computing requirements differ, i am hard pressed to see the
rationale for installing multiple os' on any system.  it suggests either
a lack of direction, or diverse needs.  with regard the latter, it's
probably prudent to build another system.  however, having said that:

    if you choose win, you're probably going to get stuck with XP
(eXtremely Painful) or one of its bastard cousins.  if you like having to
get 'permission' to reinstall, M$' flavour of 'committment to security',
and the periodic 'threats' from the BSA (business software alliance),
then you're in luck.  as an added benefit, M$'s EULA is a vigorous
substitute for sex. i'd suggest you try and get the UPGRADE to, or the
OEM version of 98-SE.  that's what i use for applications requiring win.


    for production machines, i run linux.  for me, i ran dos 3..1 for a
long time, the learning curve pretty much vertical, and a health
consideration for the faint of heart.  that however, is the cost of
stability and security.  linux has not yet reached a maturity that
supports the 'toaster user' M$ targets.  however, from my reading, most
distributions have gone a long way toward making the initial install
'painless'.

    a preeminent player in that arena is RH, and the only one on which i
can rightfully comment.  early on, 5.(1/2) and 6.(1/2) RH seemed the
kitty-cat's meow.  that it seems has changed.  now, RH is looking more
and more like M$.  for example, the RH-8.0 boxed set shipped with a
broken 'text based installer'.  that courtesy of RH's decision to change
default encoding, and not providing for it in 'their' installer.
clearly, this a prejudice toward the 'gui' install method.  maybe it's
just me, but i miss the 'book' RH used to include that described the
packages in their distribution.

    linux is blessed with the ability to 'remove' yourself from the
clutches of any particular vendor.  between this domain, 'kernel.org' and
'gnu.org', that distancing possible, and suggested.


    if "the ease of maintaining" a system, the primary question, the
answer doesn't really matter ...


-- 
... i'm a man, but i can change,
    if i have to , i guess ...

Re: multiple OSs

[Subhash Bhushan]

:)

First of all, thanks all of you for your input. I was basically asking for 
intricacies like overwriting of MBR by any other OS other than Windows 
(Novell, for ex). By "Ease of Maintenance", I meant that if any OS or the 
boot loader itself, were to get corrupted, would it be easy to get it back?

And thanks Mr.Terry White, those were some valuable input. I am an ardent 
linux forever, for its GPL. I use RH too, but I am saddened by the fact that 
from RH 9 onwards, its not going to come free anymore. Well, they had to 
make some money somewhere. So, I guess I will be going towards slackware.
And as for the fact of using multiple OSs, it eliminates the pain of 
reinstalling the system, when I need to test my "guinea pig" OSs, mainly 
freebsd and linux, from other OSs. So, I am looking towards diversity.
And I am installing windows only for namesake, nothing else. Maybe I wont 
even do that. :)

Thanks again all for the valuable input,

Subhash.

_________________________________________________________________
Hot picks. Free downloads. http://www.msn.co.in/musicnew/musicshop Visit 
music shop

Re: multiple OSs

[Sumit]

> linux forever, for its GPL. I use RH too, but I am
> saddened by the fact that 
> from RH 9 onwards, its not going to come free
> anymore. Well, they had to 
> make some money somewhere. So, I guess I will be
> going towards slackware.


Didn't knew RH is no more going to be free. Did RH
made an official statement about it. It's really sad. 


Sumit

=====

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." 
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) 



________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com

Re: multiple OSs

[Milan P. Stanic]

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 02:20:09AM +0000, Subhash Bhushan wrote:
> First of all, thanks all of you for your input. I was basically asking for 
> intricacies like overwriting of MBR by any other OS other than Windows 
> (Novell, for ex). By "Ease of Maintenance", I meant that if any OS or the 
> boot loader itself, were to get corrupted, would it be easy to get it back?

I know only for Novell Netware till version 4.12 (or 4.20) that it is
boots from DOS. So if you can boot DOS you can boot netware, and you
can boot DOS as you know already.

Regarding your original question (can the win, linux, netware and bsd
be all installed on the same hard disk, IIRC), yes you can have all of
them but only beware that the WinXX like to write over MBR and
sometimes over partition table for no apparent reason.
Or maybe they like to destroy anything what isn't devil's product. ;)
That is company policy, anyway.

> And thanks Mr.Terry White, those were some valuable input. I am an ardent 

Nice writings, heh :)))

Milan