Re: Dual-boot with Windows - easy

["Valeriy E. Ushakov" <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 14:44:35 +0100, Stephen Borrill wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> [snip]
> >>With the grub mechanism I like that it can be installed from NetBSD
> >>(with fuse-ntfs-3g) without having to do anything from Windows.
> >
> >But why would you want to load the kernel from NTFS, going through the
> >hassle of copying the kernel to NTFS each time you build a new one?
> 
> We have a NetBSD-based product that runs from a kernel with an embedded 
> ramdisk. It then uses vnds for extra modular functionality. I don't need 
> ffs filesystems anywhere (except the ramdisk!).

Well, I'd say that's something *entirely* different from "dual-boot
with windows" as typical for most people usage scenarios :)


> I'm setting up a test box to try all this and I'll update the FAQ to 
> reflect modern usage.

That would be cool, TIA!


> [snip]
> >One can, if one wants, do the dd step on netbsd, copy the trampoline
> >over to the windows manually and manually add the boot menu entry
> >(will have to figure out that multi/disk/rdisk/partition syntax).
> 
> Actually, just using C:\path seems to work in virtually all cases.

Doh, right.  As I said, you just do it once and *completely forget*
about it from then on :).  My own entry (now that I've actually looked
at it :) is:

    C:\netbsd.boot="NetBSD (Second HDD)"


> >As Martin said, the FAQ entry just needs to be updated.
> 
> I'm going to do that and add the grub info too.

Isn't that bound to become outdated eventually?  I mean, 3rd party
bootloaders usually have enough docs of their own.  Is there any
reason to duplicate them in the FAQ?  Exanding on multiboot(8) might
be a better idea.

SY, Uwe
-- 
uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost                       |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/          |       Ist zu Grunde gehen