[sfdxsm]

Simply put:

Why don't most Linux distributions, especially those aimed at Windows and new linux users, piggyback the Windows MBR/boot loader instead of overwriting it? Or at least offer an option to install inside Windows and do so.

WUBI is one of the best creations I've seen for Linux in a while from a novice Linux user POV. Except for the virtual disk downfall. Even then if you migrate the WUBI install, you still have to install GRUB.

Is there a technical issue that makes Linux patching itself as an option into Windows boot loader not feasable/simple? I've seen some of the scattered instructions to get rid of GRUB and move Linux into the Windows loader AFTER the fact with some minor editing.

 

[MOCAMBO]

It would totally defeat the purpose of Linux itself.

 

[Microsis]

Linux is an operating system.

The fact that most distro's even come with GRUB giving the option to pick which OS to launch is a blessing.

 

[nathris]

Windows boot loader can't boot linux.

 

[legoman786]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Windows boot loader can't boot linux.

The answer... sometimes, it's just as simple

 

[sfdxsm]

Well OK, yes, Linux is an operating system. And some may say it is a blessing that GRUB is even included. But linux has a huge chunk of market that are Windows users who could possibly be converted.

There's a giant market for dual booting, virtualization. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't see so many Linux distros marketed with "Windows-like interfaces" and "Windows-like features." WUBI wouldn't be created. Linspire....etc. Why not capitalize on that with a user-friendly solution that I see complained about a lot? Apple had that "ah ha!" moment with bootcamp.

Windows surely can boot Linux; It can load the GRUB manager just as GRUB would launch the windows loader.

 

[error10]

GRUB can run either in the MBR or in the boot sector of an individual partition. Unfortunately the default is to install it in the MBR, even on a dual-boot system. If you change this option during the install, then everything will be fine and Windows will not mess with the Linux boot process and vice versa. But if you install it to Windows' precious MBR which it likes to rewrite on a whim, you get into this situation.

So I think the installers should default to installing it to the boot sector on an obviously dual-boot system. In the meantime, you have the option, so watch for it and set it.

 

[nathris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfdxsm Windows surely can boot Linux; It can load the GRUB manager just as GRUB would launch the windows loader.

The Windows boot loader can't be configured to start anything other than a Windows partition. I don't even think you can boot Vista with the XP bootloader.

The only reason you would need to switch to Linux when you already have Windows is for programming needs. In terms of everyday use Windows is infinitely easier than Linux. You don't even need to install it. Virtualization technology is so good right now that if you were run a virtual linux environment full screen you still wouldn't notice anything different after an hour of use.

 

[error10]

That's funny, since in terms of everyday use I find Linux much easier than Windows. I probably wouldn't even have a copy if I wasn't folding and didn't occasionally have to run Visual Studio (programming)!

 

[-iceblade^]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Windows boot loader can't boot linux.

not to mention that windows cannot support ext3.

and yes it is a blessing that most distros come with Grub, and choose where to install it. not having a bootloader is not cool. i accidentally reinstalled windows on this hdd when i was at home and was surprised when it wouldn't boot, then i remembered that the bootloader was 1500+ kms away on my other PC, lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris The Windows boot loader can't be configured to start anything other than a Windows partition. I don't even think you can boot Vista with the XP bootloader.

True.

Quote:

The only reason you would need to switch to Linux when you already have Windows is for programming needs. In terms of everyday use Windows is infinitely easier than Linux. You don't even need to install it. Virtualization technology is so good right now that if you were run a virtual linux environment full screen you still wouldn't notice anything different after an hour of use.

I beg to differ. i thought that was the case but it has not. I have on my HDD, a hybrid tri-boot setup. one one hand, i have Vista x64 Home Premium. on the other hand i have a full Linux Mint 5 install on a separate partition, and i use GRUB to choose. Within Window i have now a Mint 6 RC1 install and aside from the differences between Mint 5 and Mint 6, it is not the same. I cannot get sound to work, i WILL NOT be able to get Compiz to work (a big part of the Linux experience for me and one major motivation for me to switch to nVidia), and my resolution is still stuck at 800x600.

granted i still need to complete the install, add in Virtualbox Guest addons, etc, but still.

and anyways, i find Linux easier. well, parts. the big one for me is the repository / package management system. it does tend to return more errors than InstallShield, sure, but it seems to clean up after itself a lot better - one annoying thing that always gets me is the detritus that comes with a Windows install after just 2 months. i don't know if that happens on the other end of the camp.

it's funny - i was in windows a few days ago looking for a new music player and i was thinking, why can't i just search through a single easy menu instead of filtering through the drivel that Google gives me, lol. i think the overall usability is better in some aspects - things like taking screenshots for upload and upload are a lot easier with Mint at least than Windows...

in the end, both sides have their merits and it is up to the user to decide. I'm just glad i can install, reformat and upgrade Linux as many times as i want and not have to worry about activations, or worry about any licenses other than the GNU GPL and LGPL licenses which protect those freedoms

.

 

[error10]

Well the other thing about Linux is you don't have to format and reinstall like you do on Windows. Sure, you CAN, but it's by no means required.

 

[Ch13f121]

Heh, that's why EasyBCD exists for vista users...I have my linux partition set up so that grub is installed, but you can't straight boot from it. From there I have my windows bootloader with NeoGrub installed, where it finds that grub partition and loads it. So it chainloads the linux bootloader.

I've got Vista, XP 32, and Ubuntu 8.10 installed all using the windows bootloader.

 

[sfdxsm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch13f121 Heh, that's why EasyBCD exists for vista users...I have my linux partition set up so that grub is installed, but you can't straight boot from it. From there I have my windows bootloader with NeoGrub installed, where it finds that grub partition and loads it. So it chainloads the linux bootloader. I've got Vista, XP 32, and Ubuntu 8.10 installed all using the windows bootloader.

that's been my recent solution too. and thats what i think more linux installs should offer.

 

[Wheezy Baby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Microsis Linux is an operating system. The fact that most distro's even come with GRUB giving the option to pick which OS to launch is a blessing.

Very true. I can say the same for Windows. Why does windows not have a linux-based installer? I can say that many of us here use only Linux so why would be purchase Windows just to install linux?