triple boot question

[bmanice]

is it possible to install winxppro, server2003, and Linux (fedora or ubuntu) on the same system? im guessing the answer is yes... but i didnt want to attempt it and destroy my mbr or something... also, is there a certain install order?

I need to use all three for my college courses this semester... and im poor so i only have one pc (barely) lol...

thanks in advance...

[moonlit]

Install XP, then install 2003 on another partition, then install Ubuntu on yet another partition... 2003 will keep XP's menu option, then Ubuntu will install GRUB which will have a menu option for Windows.

[bmanice]

awesome, thanks!

[cooper]

Install XP, then install 2003 on another partition, then install Ubuntu on yet another partition... 2003 will keep XP's menu option, then Ubuntu will install GRUB which will have a menu option for Windows.

Actually, I think it's even possible to get the Windows bootloader to start your linux partition. The trick lay in installing the Linux bootloader (grub or lilo) onto the partition rather than the drive, copying some of the first sectors of the partition into a file using the dd command, and then edit boot.ini to work with it...

It's been ages, so look around for some tutorial on the subject, but it should be possible, and has the benefit of putting everything together in 1 menu system.

[Dargor]

you could easily have grub options for xp and 2003.

just have two entries like this in your /boot/grub/menu.lst

with different partition(root) entries, remeber it counts from zero so there i have (first hdd),(first partition)

title          WinXP

root            (hd0,0)

savedefault

makeactive

chainloader    +1

[Deveant]

+1 @ moonlit's post, its by far the easiest, hasseless way of doing triboots.

Coopers works as well, though by default Windows Bootloader doesnt see the Linux partition and you have to add it manuly, which is similar to adding 3 options to grub, both requir a lil experience, were as moonlits approch requres the user just to know how to install an OS.

[Dargor]

thats right Deveant, a method where a user should actually have to configure something is defiantly inferior.

[moonlit]

Why do people want to make things more complicated just for the sake of it? Someone shouldn't need to take a degree in computer science to install an OS...

[Dargor]

Degree in CS, i haven't started that yet and i find editing grub easy.

Anyway shouldn't whatever distro is installed detect both win versions and set it up anyway. Why if it can detect/setup grub for one version of windows would it not repeat the process and do it for the other, there not that different are they?

Edit: and to answer your question moonlit, because its better this why. And why not, its a easy, good learning experience to show noobs what configuring gnu/linux is all about.

[Deveant]

but has a degree of danger, im all for testing new things, but thats y i brought a copy VMware Workstation, but you see not everyone on here is happy to risk there system, n not everyone is fluent in script languages. therefore the KISS process is needed.

[moonlit]

Degree in CS, i haven't started that yet and i find editing grub easy.

Anyway shouldn't whatever distro is installed detect both win versions and set it up anyway. Why if it can detect/setup grub for one version of windows would it not repeat the process and do it for the other, there not that different are they?

Edit: and to answer your question moonlit, because its better this why. And why not, its a easy, good learning experience to show noobs what configuring gnu/linux is all about.

Yeah, but that's what *you* think. I completely disagree that to try Linux you need to abide by the ethos and elitism that dogs the open source world. I'm sick of this attitude that if you had to compile it and configure every last minute detail then you must be uber-leet... you're not, it just means you're more patient and like things to run a few milliseconds quicker. Some people don't want or need that, some people just want things to work.

[Dargor]

What does configuring grub and compiling everything have in common?

Would you use the setup you proposed, sure it was easy to configure, but it would be annoying having to go through those two bootloaders.

Do think bmanice is too stupid to understand a simple config.

[moonlit]

What does configuring grub and compiling everything have in common?

Would you use the setup you proposed, sure it was easy to configure, but it would be annoying having to go through those two bootloaders.

Do think bmanice is too stupid to understand a simple config.

I didn't suggest that he was stupid, but why go through unnecessary configuration if doing it the easy way works fine? Sure, configure GRUB when you're ready, but maybe some people aren't ready to configue GRUB before they try Linux...

The reason I mentioned compiling everything is usually in a conversation referring to easy way vs hard way in relation to Linux ends up with a bunch of people saying "compile everything! gentoo ftw!" and others saying "I don't want to compile everything to use OpenOffice"... I figured I'd get in early I guess...

[Deveant]

Hmm Dragor, heres an exaple of what i think moonlits getting at:

se potete aspettare questo, allora thats grandi, ma al contrario im che dimostra il mio punto. Capite?

Seein that can you answer the question? If the answer is no, then thats fine, its because you dont know the language, and u wouldnt be expected to understand it, though with a little learning, its easy to pick up n go with. This is how linux is for new comers, its not something, that just by lookin at for the first time you will understand.

To learn, you start small, then add on as the user advances, such as most programs first program is gonna be "hello world" and not doom.

[Dargor]

So when do you guys think a new linux user ready to configure grub?

Maybe im just special, but it didnt take me long when i was i new to linux to configure grub, come on its just a simple text file (with comments everywhere).

If you do give it a go bmanice and get lost i am happy to help, and you've already stated a thread about it.

I figured I'd get in early I guess...

Yea, fair call, but i think gentoo and configuring grub are QUITE different.

[moonlit]

Basically, to give this thread a rest, my point was that not everyone wants to jump in configuring GRUB just to see what this Linux deally's all about... perhaps that'll come later if they like and continue using Linux. The OP asked how to easily install all three, I provided the easiest answer I knew of. Sure, some people like to go head first in to it, configuring LILO/GRUB, command lining their way through the computing world and all that jazz but not everyone does. I was providing for those who don't.

[VaKo]

LILO fucking sucks, don't use it.

[G-Stress]

I am tri-booting Vista, XP and linux and wondering. I need to format the vista partition and re-install vista, but once I do it will override my lilo config. My current config is:

1st partition 40gb Vista

2nd partition 60    XP

3rd partition 10    Linux

During boot it first boots lilo and asks me for windows or linux then I select windows and it boots the vista bootloader. Is there anyway I can format the vista partition, reinstall and keep my current config or somehow config for tri-boot without re-installing linux. Last 2 times I had to re-install linux after I re-did Vista.

[cooper]

The Windows install will remove your Lilo/Grub bootloader.

To boot your Linux without your own bootloader, get your hands on a Linux LiveCD. When you boot from it you tend to be greeted by a "Boot:" prompt, allowing you to select the kernel to boot with. You can add a 'root=/dev/hdX1' parameter to the kernel name, and thus boot your current install with the kernel on the LiveCD.

I'm not entirely certain about this, but I think it's also possible to just write the kernel file onto a floppy and then boot from that. Simply 'dd if=/boot/kernel of=/dev/fd0'. You shouldn't even have to configure anything.

Once you're in Linux run '/sbin/lilo' / '/sbin/grub-install' to put the bootloader back in place, and, in case of the Live-CD, reboot so that you know you're working with your own kernel once more.

[bmanice]

thanks guys i really appreciate the help, looks like everything is in working order...

:mrgreen:

[K1u]

Degree in CS, i haven't started that yet and i find editing grub easy.

Anyway shouldn't whatever distro is installed detect both win versions and set it up anyway. Why if it can detect/setup grub for one version of windows would it not repeat the process and do it for the other, there not that different are they?

Edit: and to answer your question moonlit, because its better this why. And why not, its a easy, good learning experience to show noobs what configuring gnu/linux is all about.

Yeah, but that's what *you* think. I completely disagree that to try Linux you need to abide by the ethos and elitism that dogs the open source world. I'm sick of this attitude that if you had to compile it and configure every last minute detail then you must be uber-leet... you're not, it just means you're more patient and like things to run a few milliseconds quicker. Some people don't want or need that, some people just want things to work.

I agree in the sense of people thinking they are leet just because they run the OS. This is probably a over used saying but - "its not what you have its how you use it" is really something I apply to many Linux users. I had a friend who recently thought he was as you said "uber-leet" because he installed the OS and learned a couple bash commands, when it came down to installing Beryl he had his head in a whole not knowing what to do. Really alot of people you hear talking about "yeah this linux guru compiles everything to his kernel" which alot really do not know how to do and I find a waste of time. I would rather yum -y install nameofapp than having to go through the process of compiling from source. Nowadays Linux elitists think they know everything and I will be straight honest with you when I first got into Linux about 2 years back I had the same mindset that because I ran this "oh so godlike" OS I am god. It is really not like that especially now where a random guy could download a pre-compiled ISO of his Distro of choice, burn it up then gui install it and gui install all his apps in packages. I remember or at least I know those who used Linux when a Distro was not this beautiful little ISO he could just burn up but actually had to go through the process of compiling the Distro and writing down the address of his modem and other things that are now "auto detected" in these nice little GUI installed Distros. Same goes for *BSD nowadays it is much easier to install even partitioning in it has a auto function for those who do not even know what the proper size of a swap should be. I can go on and on but that would be worthless hopefully you get what point I am trying to make moonlit.

[OtterFox]

Found this just before:

http://www.apcmag.com/node/5162/

It looks handy.

[G-Stress]

The Windows install will remove your Lilo/Grub bootloader.

To boot your Linux without your own bootloader, get your hands on a Linux LiveCD. When you boot from it you tend to be greeted by a "Boot:" prompt, allowing you to select the kernel to boot with. You can add a 'root=/dev/hdX1' parameter to the kernel name, and thus boot your current install with the kernel on the LiveCD.

I'm not entirely certain about this, but I think it's also possible to just write the kernel file onto a floppy and then boot from that. Simply 'dd if=/boot/kernel of=/dev/fd0'. You shouldn't even have to configure anything.

Once you're in Linux run '/sbin/lilo' / '/sbin/grub-install' to put the bootloader back in place, and, in case of the Live-CD, reboot so that you know you're working with your own kernel once more.

Finally got around to this. I tried the above suggested  "root=/dev/sda3" which is where my linux distro is installed, and it could not find kernel error. Now I don't know too much about the "kernel" but I booted up with the live cd to see where in the "mnt" directory it would be looking for. It looked as if I should have tried "root=/dev/sda3/boot" or "root=/dev/sda3/boot/vmlinuz" because that is the file it looks like it boot from off the live cd, but none of those worked.

I just re-installed Vista finally with a corporate copy, still got XP and BT installed but it over-written lilo and I would like to re-write lilo so I won't have to re-install BT or even use Grub if I can without re-installing anything.

[Sparda]

Installing grub is simple enough. Boot a live disk (/me mutters kubuntu ftw), mount a ext3/2 or RaiserFS partiton to a knowen directory (kubuntu likes to mount things in /media). You don't have to mount it with any particular options as long is it isn't ro.

So lets take some assumptions:

Your hard drive all three are install on and your BIOS has been told to boot first is /dev/sda

You mounted a ext2/3 or RaiserFS partition at /media/harddrive

Given the above the below command will install grub for you (must run as root):

grub-install --root-directory=/media/harddrive /dev/sda

It should automatically find all your installed OS'.

[G-Stress]

@ Sparda,

I can't find a liveCD of kubuntu, i tried 2 different one's but it wants to install to the hdd doesn't run live. I tried Ubuntu 5.4 cause I found it layin around and it wouldn't boot, had an issue with the display for some strange reason and wouldn't boot, I just tried knoppix it wouldn't boot either, hung on trying to find partitions. So I'm just a little bit lost. If I'm running the liveCD of BT it does automatically mount the partitions in /mnt/sdaX couldn't I someway, somehow just re-rewrite lilo that way? I would like to use grub though for experience, I've never used it yet.