|
-
-
Ubuntu has a manual selection to specify which partition to be installed. Never had a bother with it.
Only very poorly put together distros unable to get installed onto specified partitions but this is rare. I am speaking from a user currently having 60 partitions in a hard disk with only 28 empty partitions. The rest is filled with one Linux per partition.
Haven't tried Ibex yet but have got quite a few Ubuntu variants installed.
-
A casual google led me to think this may have been an Ibex issue and I was hoping for speedy confirmation or denial of that on this thread - I'll watch developments, but suspect the fora here are more active for the less populist distros... or that the golks here always go for the manual editing of partitions.
Certainly thought it was interesting as an experience for me - basically Ubuntu install gives a graphical parted with radio buttons for resizing, use of existing, use of free, or whole drive install. The variations I tried all compromised the MBR for my pre-existing windows install... but it is likely my mistake somewhere down the line (like electing for grub to go to MBR or something?)
In the process of arriving at Debian after seeing the light with Bucky Badger, which will date me if we ever have a Zany Zebra 
-
If you are presented with a partition table the procedure is to highlight the partition you wish to install then click "Edit". Inside it you will be given the choice of mounting so select "/". You will also be provided with the freedom to format or not formatting the partition so selected "format". Once formatting has been selected a grey-out box will become alive and shows you the different filing systems available so take a pick. The installation will be smoothly done after clicking the "OK" button.
The above is the manual selection routine used by the Ubuntu installer. Quite a few distros also use this type of partition selection.
The boot loader selection is not obvious in Ubuntu installer but it is under "Advance option for the boot loader" or something along that line at one of the screen well before you expect it. If the box is ticked you later get an extra screen showing the where to put the boot loader, otherwise the screen doesn't get displayed and the boot loader is put in the MBR automatically.
I wouldn't worry where the boot loader has gone because one can always change it with any Linux Live CD.
As far as I know one distro based on another distro would use the same full installer as it is a lot of work to get it right.
Last edited by saikee; 04-09-2009 at 03:31 AM.
-
MainframeGuy
In a fashion reminiscent of M$ it took a fascist attitude and insisted on owning the machine, in one case actually stealing the partition, despite selecting option to only use free space. In the other two it just messed the MBR up.
Not to start bashing Ubuntu, I think they are doing a good job helping people make the transition from windows to linux. But the last time I installed it, it wrote to the MBR without asking, just did it. Its not a big deal but that's how it starts, a little at a time, then before you know it. M$untu
Me I think I'll stay with Debian and Gentoo, I learn more about Linux using them any-who. I will still recommend the *buntu's for the newbe.
-
Ubuntu is a big development and has spawned a big family of distros. It does have a few projects that bridge the gaps, which are ignored by others, between Linux and M$ users.
A notable example is it has a executable distro, called portable Ubuntu, that can be wholly run inside a MS Windows. This is an excellent to the first timers of Linux because they could suddenly see every hidden files in their C drive through Ubuntu and have a full access to a Bash shell in additional to a full blown GUI. This project is unique as it doesn't require a virtual machine layer like VMWare at all.
I think Linux and MS systems have moved on and no longer rigid on the partition and the location of the boot loader. The MS systems by default must be booted from an active primary partition and so in in order to survive they must take over the MBR. Linux can be booted by any boot loader and so it can be flexible with the boot loader. I would say most Linux can be booted without having a boot loader installed.
Ubuntu and many other modern Linux are serious competitors to MS systems. I have instlled a couple of free Win7 systems in my box and each one acts and looks like a Ubuntu now, no driver needed and everything works when the OS is installed.
Server-based applications may still prefer the rock solid Debian or Red Hat though.
-
but it is likely my mistake somewhere down the line (like electing for grub to go to MBR or something?)
There's a little option on the very last screen of the installation that says "advanced" or something like that. In the advanced dialog there is a checkbox to install to (hd0), which is checked by default. If I remember correctly you can uncheck it and select an alternative partition to install it on (for example, /dev/sda2) and then chainload grub using your other bootloader.
If you uncheck that box it shouldn't mess with the MBR though.
EDIT:
Here's a link to screenshots of the installation process. The authors actually went through and clicked the advanced button so you can see the dialog that pops up and the drop down menu to let you select which partition you wish to install grub on. Notice the checkbox at the top called "Install boot loader" is enabled by default. Furthermore...the default location is (hd0) as I previously mentioned, but you're free to change that.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Insta...TS-84314.shtml
Last edited by gamblor01; 04-11-2009 at 10:13 AM.
"The author of that poem is either Homer or, if not Homer, somebody else of the same name."
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Was it me? Or does the Ibex installation parted have issues?
Reply With Quote
