Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista

An anonymous reader writes, "NeoSmart Technologies has just released EasyBCD 1.5, complete with support for Vista, Windows NT/2k/XP, and Windows 9x/ME. EasyBCD 1.5 adds experimental support for dual-booting any of these along with Linux, Mac OS X, or BSD — straight from the Windows Vista bootloader without any additional configuration needed!" From the article: "Windows Vista's new bootmanager is a double-edged sword. It's one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence, and a far cry from the very limiting boot.ini of legacy Windows operating systems. But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought, and doesn't provide any means for users of alternate operating systems and boot managers to use their old system. That's where EasyBCD 1.5 comes in!" EasyBCD 1.5 is free.

BCD?

i've always found bcd quite easy. just throw away a large fraction of the legitimate encodings...wait, what?

No Wonder

EasyBCD 1.5 is free

Yeah, they get free ads on slashdot, so their adbudget is way low.

Surprise, surprise.

"But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought...."

Well, who would have expected Microsoft to do that?

Re:Surprise, surprise.

What if he is like me and already has a working, tweeked and otherwise perfected install of linux running. I'm sure there has to be an easier way then trashing that, installing windows first then rebuilding your linux install.

Personaly, I choose to instal lilo onto a floppy (the boot code). Then go in later and move it to the hard drive. This allows me to boot to a boot disk and streight into linux if neccesary. Also it allows for a backup of lilo's config in case windows trashes the partition linux is on.

Something i'm wondering is, Did microsoft do this in order to screw open source boot loaders and make the act of dual booting into a free operating system more dificult? It apears that the site is down for the EasyBCD loader. I cannot tell if it is free as in opensource free or just free as in no costs for now free. It could directly effect the way some distro's are compatible with VIsta.

I'm also wondering if the "opensource" free version if any, would be GPLv3 compatible because microsoft will no doubtly have certain levels of pattents pertaining to the vista boot loader that the EasyBCD guys might not be able to control enough to be GPLv3 compliant. Not to mention that newer microsoft OS's typicly create a volume serial number that is tied into booting and operation of the OS. This is most evident when cloning drives and when it doesn't keep the corect serial you get errors on booting. How would this be effected by the ANTI-TIVO type wording in the GPLv3 when a GPLed product is working with the code or programs? I Think some clearification might be in order on this. I have raised simular questions before with products like Itunes and Hardware that locks certain performances out in cheaper versions and the answer is always, they shouldn't be doing that or the Closed app should be open. I'm sure booting to vista in a free way might be more important then forcing apple to opensource Itunes in order to keep a GPLv3 frontend compatible with the GPL.

An no, I'm not trolling. These are legit concerns with the GPLv3 brought up by others too. I'm just putting them into relvent terms that can be related to in this context. It would suck donkey balls if GPLv3 licensed bootloaders are incompatible to dual booting with microsoft operating systems because of this. Especial when the entire idea behind the changes is to control the manufacturers hardware with previous versions of the GPL claims is outside the GPL's scope.

Re:Surprise, surprise.

I've had Red Hat (years ago) completely corrupt my HD while shutting down. Obviously I should never use any Linux distro ever again!

Overwrite MBR == Urgent Patch

This one won't make it to the gold master.

Kind of like stealing from a Las Vegas casino. Won't happen.

Re:Overwrite MBR == Urgent Patch

Overwriting the MBR is reckless, it isn't their data

In case you didn't notice, you are installing an operating system. Generally speaking, machines have always shipped with one OS to control the entire system. It is certainly *not* unreasonable for Microsoft to overwrite the MBR. Especially when they expect that their OS will be the only one. You'd have a hard time convincing a judge otherwise.

The fact that Microsoft hasn't improved this part of the install as more hobby OSes have showed up just goes to show how little they care about letting you use your hardware as you want to use it. But they are under no obligations, especially when the installer warns you to make backups before you run it.

Getting lots of OSes running

I know its possible to boot BSD, Vista, XP, and OSX if you use Grub->>Vista Bootloader->>NTLDR (to load bsd/osx, vista, and XP respectively). However, knowing that I can skip grub (no offense. I just didn't feel comfortable using it) is great news!

Re:Getting lots of OSes running

Grub isn't very difficult to adjust to. I also held out on learning it for a while, but it actually is kinda nice. The thing I really like about it is after making a change (new kernel, boot option, etc) it isn't necessary to reinstall it to the mbr. Just edit menu.lst and it's done.

Take the 5 minutes to learn it.

Re:Getting lots of OSes running

When you "make install" a new Linux kernel, it makes a symlink /boot/vmlinuz to the new kernel. So you won't even have to edit menu.lst if the boot option is this symlink. Grub also has the nice feature of editing the kernel entry at bootup, so you can go back to the old kernel if necessary.

Re:Getting lots of OSes running

To me, GRUB seems like insane bloatware. Why do I need something that's so big it needs its own partition just to handle multiboot? The FreeBSD first-stage boot loader is small enough to fit in the MBR. It presents me with a menu of all partitions to boot from (although it does label NTFS partitions as DOS) so I get something a bit like this at boot:

F1: FreeBSD
F2: DOS

F5: Disk 2

Default: F1

It defaults to whatever I booted last time. If I nuke all of the partitions on my disk and re-install, it still works, passing off to the OS-specific boot loaders on each partition. It's lightweight, simple, well-tested, and does what I need.

Re:Getting lots of OSes running

Grub doesn't need an extra parition to boot from. I'm noting that you said the 1st stage BSD bootloader. That would imply that, just like Linux, there is a 2nd stage to the boot loading. The 1st stage of grub fits in the MBR without issue. The 2nd stage is read from your boot partition, which in most modern distros is the same as your root partition. It also happens that is a handy place to put the bootloader config in human-readable form. You might call that bloat, but I call it handy for stuff like single user mode or testing a new kernel without worrying about needing a boot floppy.

The "last selected OS" is handy, and GRUB can be configured to do this as well, but what if you last selected single user mode, or memtest86? If you reboot your machine remotely, and forget that the last option selected has no network support, you have no way to access the machine. At least with GRUB, you can edit the config and tell it not to do that.

BCD

Why would I want to boot up to Binary Coded Decimals? So terribly inefficient.

2 OS's running simultaneously

I don't see what's so impressive about Vista's bootloader, unless you're simply comparing it to prior MS versions. What would be cool is if Microsoft released software that allowed someone to simultaneously open multiple O/S's at the same time in a non-virtualized environment. Imagine being able to switch back and forth between Linux and Windows simply by hitting a keystroke?

With the advent of dual core chips and O/S support for these chips, this doesn't seem all that difficult. Isn't Apple already doing it?

Re:2 OS's running simultaneously

"He's probably thinking of Rosetta and/or X11, or before that Classic for running Mac OS 9 and earlier apps under Mac OS X."

None of which represent running "2 OSs at the same time without virtualization".

Rosetta: a PowerPC emulation layer for running PowerPC binaries on Intel. I don't know the details but I would assume that system calls to Mac OS X APIs are presented to the native Intel OS X components - so the whole thing isn't exactly running in the emulation layer. The OS components being called by the software are running native on Intel.

X11: A window manager for UNIX. X11 apps running on Mac OS X are still binaries built to run on OS X. The Window manager just handles displaying the GUI elements. This is not running a different OS.

Classic mode: A form of virtualization. It booted OS 9 in a seperate process under OS X. Similar to how VMWare or Virtual PC work. Probably a bit better in terms of hardware support, because Apple had fixed targets for possible hardware on Apple computers, rather than VMWare which for some devices (video cards) only offers basic support.

Despite the marketing speak...

> It (BCD) is one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence...

I'm curious if this statement is more than marketing speak. What's so great about BCD?

Why BCD?

So... any particular reason why BCD instead of GRUB or Lilo? I don't get it.

Well?

It's one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence

Does it surpass GRUB in features? Surely if you are going to boot into multiple OS's GRUB is the better choice?

Except for the fact that...

...you can't "boot OS X" on non-Apple hardware without:

1. Breaking Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which says that Mac OS X is to be run only on Apple-branded computers
2. Pirating Mac OS X (Intel), since Mac OS X (Intel) is not available as a standalone OS at present
3. Running a horribly hacked version of Mac OS X, with critical pieces of the system modified, including the kernel
4. Running Mac OS X in an unupdateable state, since any official Apple software updates that overwrite modified pieces of the hacked version of Mac OS X will break it
5. Running Mac OS X in a state completely unsupported by its vendor
6. Possibly violating civil or criminal law in your jurisdiction

I hope that most people can find at least *one* of the above items that would make them reconsider running Mac OS X (Intel) on a generic PC without paying for it (some will no doubt argue that they should be able to "reuse" PowerPC licenses for Mac OS X in spirit, but the fact is that it's not the same product - that's like saying that you at one time owned one software product from a company that's similar, so you should be able to use this other one/newer version/older version/different version for free). I'm sure others will come up with all sorts of justifications why it's okay.

But isn't all of the billions of dollars or R&D and hundreds of thousands of manhours invested in Mac OS X worth something? What if their pricing is predicated on what is essentially a good faith agreement that you'll not hack it and run it on non-Apple hardware? Does Apple have ANY say in how they'd prefer it to be used?

I could go on, of course, but just thought this was worth mentioning.

Re:Except for the fact that...

Pretty much, yeah. If you're a control nazi, don't release your shit. Fuck corporations like Apple who wanna fuck the consumers up the ass sans lube.

Apple doesn't exactly try to get people thrown in jail for doing this. Sure, they frown on people who distribute hacked versions of their OS. But, I think they are right to do that merely from the point of view that they are protecting less savvy people from fucking themselves and also making it really clear that running OS X in that manner is unsupported and therefore unwise if you are doing any work that might actually be important. But frankly, I've spoken with lots of people from Apple on the subject (admittedly they are not from Apple Legal and are not speaking officially) and they pretty all say that if you want to hack something for the sheer fun of trying to get it to work and aren't redistributing their stuff, then knock yourself out.

The award goes to...

The real props should go to Microsoft for designing a flexible bootmanager and boot-time-application framework that is flexible and firmware independent (x86 BIOS, IA32 EFI, IA64 EFI, x64 EFI).

Apple is SOOOO Gonna SUE THEM

You're not supposed to be able to boot OS X. The very fact that these guys have gone ahead and enabled a way to boot multiple OSes as well as OS X puts them in completely illegal territory. Apple and the U.S. government established the anti-boot laws to keep people from booting OS X. This was for the protection of both the consumer and Microsoft. Now that people can boot OS X, it's a problem. So these people will be heavily sued by Apple, you can count on that.

Tinfoil too tight?

Apple and the U.S. government established the anti-boot laws to keep people from booting OS X.

I'm sorry ... what?

Are you posting from the future, where the world has been decimated by killer iPods or something?

License: Freeware

Downloaded it just to check the license (yeah, I'm odd about this crap)

It's freeware. Sorta looks like a Creative Commons license, but basically it's just plain old freeware.

4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to, this License with every copy of the Work You distribute, and only with the permission of the Licensor & Original Author. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.
b. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
c. If you distribute the Work, You must obtain permission from and let the Original Author know, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (and/or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; and to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner.

well... i will have to check this out later

since they maybe able to help me boot linux w/ vista's Bootloader but they can not save their webserver from collapsing under the weight of the slashdot masses. sooo... but without this ... u can still use GRUB or LILO right ?? in the same way as XP/Linux dual boot? I haven't tried it soo just wondering..

MS owns the MBR

you have no rights to the MBR

get vista, get owned

But can it boot OSes installed on SATA-RAID?

I'd love to easily run alternative OSes on my home PC alongside Windows XP, but I can't because my hard drive is a SATA-RAID array. I've been unable to find any straightforward way to get bootloaders (such as GRUB) or alternative OSes (such as Linux) to install on, address, and boot from an SATA-RAID array (aka "fakeRAID"). Some limited support is available in Linux using "dmraid", but apparently you have to be a command-line expert with significant Linux-Fu powers to set that up, and all it will allow you to do is boot up GRUB from a non-SATA-RAID drive and then use it to boot Windows from a SATA-RAID array. No distribution I've found appears to deal well (or at all) with installing Linux to and multi-booting Linux from an SATA-RAID array that already has Windows on it.

This is a huge impediment to people installing and using Linux on modern systems, as motherboard-based SATA-RAID is becoming increasingly common (especially in higher-end home/gaming PCs). The only workaround I've found is to install a spare non-RAID drive and make it bootable to Linux, and then go change the motherboard's BIOS to boot off that drive instead of the RAID array, which is a major PITA just to choose which OS you want to boot.

So my question is, does the Vista bootloader allow booting of non-Windows OSes off of the SATA-RAID array that Vista is installed on? Does EasyBCD really make it easy to host and boot multiple OSes off a single SATA-RAID array? If so, that opens up the door to more easily dual-booting Linux on modern systems.

That's a nice MBR you've got there ...

It would be a shame if anything ... you know ... happened to it.

Well I just tried it

I had to replace my MBR for it to work, since I had loaded grub into it.

So I tried to boot into Linux. I must say, I don't remember Linux being a blank screen. I seem to recall it being more interactive...

the *Ubuntu* post on Overwrite mbr

Your friendly Ubuntu post is here ;)

Ubuntu isn't much different either: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/grub- installer/+bug/47229 [launchpad.net]
its grub doesn't like other distros either.

But this is not to say that Windows' "overwrite mbr" isn't a bug...

I Don't Get It...

...I've always been able to boot into BSoD on Window? How is this news?

completely pointless software

If someone installs fistho over their windows partition on a duel boot system they simply have to use a linux install CD to boot into linux and set grub or lilo back up. I don't remember any windows install not destroying the MBR. I don't remember anyone expecting it to do anything less.

Boot in rescue mode and mount the linux partition
fdisk -l
mount -t partition_type /dev/linux_partition /mnt/sysimage
chroot /mnt/sysimage
live distro's

For grub
grub-install /dev/first_disk (first_disk = hda or sda. check the fdisk -l output if you don't know)
For lilo /sbin/lilo

This has always been possible

Although the blurb explicitly claims that this new bootloader is "more powerful" than NTLDR/boot.ini, in fact it sounds like this new loader is doing the same thing (starting grup/lilo/etc. from the windows boot loader) that people have been doing for ages with NTLDR. Here is an ancient HOWTO [web.cern.ch] on how to do it.

"among the most powerful"?

"Windows Vista's new bootmanager is a double-edged sword. It's one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence, and a far cry from the very limiting boot.ini of legacy Windows operating systems. But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought, and doesn't provide any means for users of alternate operating systems and boot managers to use their old system.

Then it is not necessarily among the most powerful. That is a absic feature among virtually all of the rest. Others do allow you to do that and more. GRUB will boot most any OS that runs on x86, allows to you install in the MBR or not in the MBR, lets you "remap" the order of drives in the system so you can put certain OSes that think they HAVE to be on the first disk. You can change it's appearance install to floppy, use it on a CD (IIRC), and more. LILO will do this as well. GRUB will allow you to edit things at boot time as well, though LILO does not. So I suppose if you cast the net wide enough to catch all boot managers then you can say it is, but then that's kinda pointless. Where is the line drawn? Top 10%, 25%? Any demarcation from 25% and below will likely result in it not being among "the most powerful in existence".

Google cache; good but no screenshots

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KeYr-YmH3ooJ: neosmart.net/dl.php%3Fid%3D1+http://neosmart.net/d l.php%3Fid%3D1&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=fir efox-a [64.233.161.104] yay...

More info on booting Linux with Vista Boot Manager

In case you're interested Port 25 just posted some information about using the Vista Boot Manager to boot Linux last week: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/10/13/Using -Vista_2700_s-Boot-Manager-to-Boot-Linux-and-Dual- Booting-with-BitLocker-Protection-with-TPM-Support .aspx [technet.com]

or...

Alternatively, you can banish the Vista boot loader to its own partition and boot with Grub. Or, better yet, banish the Vista boot loader together with Vista entirely from your disk.

Looks like EasyBCD does not exist

When I click on their pages I am directed to a message that says the account has been closed. It does not say why. t

Boot Record Mastery

" Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista"

That's not "from" Vista, it's despite Vista.

Suspended?

I'm trying to access the "EasyBCD" site from Bangalore, India, but I'm getting an error from this page instead:

http://mumbai.micfo.com/suspended.page/ [micfo.com]
This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Poor chap got slashdotted, perhaps.

Slashdotted to death!

This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Here's how to make a double boot pc

What ever MS would do, it cannot prevent the user to create a double boot pc. Here's one way to do it:
1. You need two disks. Install Vista with one disk only or buy it preinstalled.
2. Install your favourite Linux on the second disk with Grub or Lilo.
3. Make the second disk the booting disk.

When the pc boots the Grub/Lilo gets the control. There you can select whether to boot Linux or Visva.

BootIt NG makes a mockery of other bootloaders

Terabyte Unlimited makes an unglamorous product named BootIt Next Generation (or BootIt NG, or simply BING) that renders the debate over grub and ntldr moot, because it makes pretty much every other bootloader seem infantile by comparison.

I don't work for Terabyte and don't receive any money from them whatsoever; in fact, the money flowed the other direction some years ago and I'm glad that it did. BING ain't free, but it costs less than whatever sexy videogame you're planning to buy next month... with which you'll probably be bored and done a month after that. Perhaps the money would be better spent on a bootloader that allows more than four primary partitions and lets you explicitly define exactly which partitions are visible to each OS, and will serve your needs for years to come?

Need for a user-controlled HD security partition.

Seems like there could be a market case for reserving an area on a disk that isn't visible upon boot unless the "extra" partiton is made visible before the OS boot. After the OS is booted, the hard disk would appear to be a regular hard disk with Track 0, Partition 0 *starting* on the first track past your user-reserved, secure/invisible partition.

For example a secure HD might come with a 30G "hidden" at the beginning or end of the physical disk. Upon boot, if "key" (isn't inserted in computer during boot, the physcial HD (really size 100G) boots up with a 60G disk visable. Without the key (sw, hw, whatever) present on boot, it formats and functions like a 60G HD.

With the key installed, it boots off the hidden partition table. From there you run your "well mannered" OS's, they can boot other OS's or execute an "eject/disable key", and boot into the 60G sandbox where Vista can believe it has the entire device to itself.

Of course the priviledged OS could alternatively, launch the Vista OS within a VM. It could have a dual-boot HW config as though it was a multi-dockable laptop where many hardware changes get ignored: ethernet ports, hard disk, peripheral changes even disk-controllers as my docked laptop at work has a PCI-bridge & bus to a PCI-SCSI-RAID card, while the one at home uses alternate hardware, and an external eSata self-contained RAID box. Screen configs can differ -- mouse and keyboard config, etc. Neat thing -- it's all the same processor, and main-hard disk image, so it really is all the same computer -- laptop configs give much lattitude in changing in/out hardware.

Now if only I can get native XP 3d-accelerated graphics while in the VM...sigh.

-l

speaking from experience, why bother?

Dual boot on a desktop is a pain in the ass no matter how implemented. The fundamental problem is that Murphy's Law dictates that the next operation you want to make on a file is going to require use of whatever OS you are NOT booted to. That cut short my initial experiments with RedHat9 way back when... when I used RH9, I couldn't get to my e-mail or other Windows apps, and with Windows booted, I couldn't work with Linux.

So I run Windows in Win4Lin 9.x virtualization software using FC3 as a host OS (yes, I'm planning to upgrade to Xen or VMware), and cut and paste freely between Linux and Windows apps, and can even work on the same file in Linux and Windows apps at the same time if I absolutely have to. Why would I want to go from this to dual boot?

Re:Slashdoted

already slashdoted

microsoft overwrote it...

Re:Vista Copies Open Source software again?

LOL Silicone Valley...I think Pirates of Silicone Valley was a porn flick...you're thinking of Pirates of Silicon Valley.