On Friday 21 January 2005 5:34 pm, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:51, Vince Littler wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2005 7:18 am, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
jalal
In either case, as an L1 speaker of English, the 'not' seems to bind with 'can'. [vl snipped] So "Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader".
Actually all of you (except Randall) have answered the wrong question. The question was "...is there an option to...". "can", "cannot", "manditory", "required", etc. reflect your interpretation of the OP's intent. The most appropriate answer is "Yes, there is an option to not install a boot loader." or some variation of this as Randall suggested.
Jeff
Fair 'nuff. but Jalal did ask us to contemplate on the difference between: Yes, you can not install a boot loader. Yes, you cannot install a boot loader. So that is mostly what I am addressing. To the specific context of the original question:
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
"Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader" also fit adequately.