Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2+ Preview 12 - Now with Dimples

[Jerome E. S. Jr. <je...@sh...>]

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Corbin Davenport <dav...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Is there a possibility FreeDOS could install the GRUB manager by default on PCs with multiple partitions? Or even go a step further and try to detect an existing GRUB installation, and adding it's own menu item to it?

I don’t think it would be very practical to do under DOS. Especially, when a preexisting grub may exist on a separate linux partition.

> 
> Corbin
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Don Flowers <do...@gm... <mailto:do...@gm...>> wrote:
> OK - I have several PC's with varying modern installs (WIN7, WIN10, Xubuntu) 
> residing along with various versions of MS-DOS and FreeDOS (even a custom
> FAT16 version of FreeDOS). I have created several rescue disks and yet there is
> always at least one install that either messes up my boot code (usually fixable) or 
> deletes an entire partition even when hidden (thank you MS-DOS 6.2 and Windows 10). 
> The point being it happens and the inew install should have the priority.
> If one has "precious" data then one better have a backup before installing.

This is how I am leaning now. 

Having a non-booting DOS install after a normal installation really is not an acceptable behavior. 

Therefore, I think in normal mode it should always just backup MBR to %DOSDIR%\ORIGINAL.BSS
and just zap it when it transfers the system files. 

> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Felix Miata <mr...@ea... <mailto:mr...@ea...>> wrote:
> Mateusz Viste composed on 2016-02-23 09:28 (UTC+0100):
> 
> > I'm going with Louis on this one. When installing FreeDOS, I'd expect
> > the installer to overwrite my MBR with clean boot code, so I don't have
> > any troubles booting FreeDOS post install. That's what MS-DOS did, and
> > that's what I expect from any OS in fact.
> 
> I expect more sophistication than such belligerence. Even WinXP checks MBR
> code compatibility, and leaves it undisturbed if OK.

Um, windows always trashed my boot loader on install in a multi-boot system.
It was always easiest to just install Windows, then install linux. That way I would
not have to fix it.

> 
> > Naturally, an appropriately big warning must be presented before doing
> > so, and if the user knows he has some tricky configuration (multi-boot),
> > he should be able to select an option "leave my MBR alone please, I will
> > take care of it myself".
> 
> This I find acceptable, and inconsistent with your previous paragraph. All
> the non-ancient Linux installers I'm familiar with allow the MBR to be kept
> undisturbed, even if it means the new Linux installation seems won't be bootable.

I think this is in direct conflict with what Jim said he wanted.
Basically, only a few quick questions and you have finished installing.
However, if zapping the MBR is added. I will add a prompt in advanced mode
to not do it. Just like in advanced mode, you can change the install path, not
update config file, not transfer system files. etc.