Sten Anderson wrote:
>
>
> I disagree. Loadlin is perfect in this case. It is very easy to use,
> and it cannot damage the system in any way because it doesn't touch
> the MBR or the bootsectors. LILO - on the other hand - is more
> difficult to set up correctly, and if used incorrectly, LILO can
> leave the system in an unbootable state that is difficult to repair.
>
> Although LILO is - technically - a better solution in the general
> case, it should not be applied before reading the LILO user guide and
> the HOWTO's concerning dualbooting of Windows and Linux.
>
Sten,
Does this mean that Loadlin can boot linux when it's in another
partition? I had thought its main use was to allow Linux to boot from a
dos subdirectory /linux. In my case, running Win95B with FAT32, I
understand Linux would not support running in that file system. Am I
incorrect?
dave
--
--David E. Scott Ohio Administrative Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
