First of all, dual booting is booting more than one OS off the same bootable partition. Installing more than one OS to more than one partition and using a boot manager to choose the system to boot is called multibooting.
Geoffrey wrote:
Have you a resource for your defintion?
You snipped it from your reply. Here's another: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Multiboot-with-GRUB.html You'll notice the
title is not >"Dualboot-with-GRUB". Felix: I don't believe you! The word "dual" comes from the latin word /duo/ which means TWO, 1+1. If you install and boot two different operating systems on your machine (OBVIOUSLY in different partitions) you will have a "dual booting", if you install MORE than TWO OS (and decide to boot them), then you no longer have "dual booting" but "multi-booting", simple! Until you come up with credible evidence for your claim, Im afraid you will have to re-check your information sources. Cheers, Felipe.
Felipe Leon wrote:
First of all, dual booting is booting more than one OS off the same bootable partition. Installing more than one OS to more than one partition and using a boot manager to choose the system to boot is called multibooting.
Geoffrey wrote:
Have you a resource for your defintion?
You snipped it from your reply. Here's another: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Multiboot-with-GRUB.html You'll notice the title is not >"Dualboot-with-GRUB".
Felix:
I don't believe you!
The word "dual" comes from the latin word /duo/ which means TWO, 1+1. If you install and boot two different operating systems on your machine (OBVIOUSLY in different partitions) you will have a "dual booting", if you install MORE than TWO OS (and decide to boot them), then you no longer have "dual booting" but "multi-booting", simple!
Until you come up with credible evidence for your claim, Im afraid you will have to re-check your information sources.
Well, actually IBM calls the ability to boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition "Dual Boot".
On Sunday 18 January 2004 14:49, James Knott wrote:
Well, actually IBM calls the ability to boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition "Dual Boot".
I doubt that IBM would make such a silly mistake as suggesting you could boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition. Same disk, maybe, but not the same partition. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Monday 19 January 2004 01:33, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 18 January 2004 14:49, James Knott wrote:
Well, actually IBM calls the ability to boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition "Dual Boot".
I doubt that IBM would make such a silly mistake as suggesting you could boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition.
Same disk, maybe, but not the same partition.
http://www.os2ezine.com/v1n2/heath.html OS/2 users have the option to boot between more that one OS. This is done by one of two utilities, Boot Manager or Dual Boot. Although they both let you boot between at least two operating systems, they work very differently and have their own advantages and drawbacks. Dual Boot is the default install option for OS/2, and is the more basic of the two. It allows a user to boot either OS/2 or DOS (and therefore Windows 3.x or Win95), but OS/2 and DOS/Windows both reside on the same partition. Users have the ability to switch between the two by going into the \OS2 directory and typing the command "BOOT /OS2" or "BOOT /DOS". This is the only solution for installing OS/2 on a partition that already has DOS, and can't be backed up and re-partitioned. However, it also limits you to using FAT as your file system.
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 18 January 2004 14:49, James Knott wrote:
Well, actually IBM calls the ability to boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition "Dual Boot".
I doubt that IBM would make such a silly mistake as suggesting you could boot OS/2 or DOS from the same partition.
No mistake.
Same disk, maybe, but not the same partition.
Same partition. It's called "dual boot", to distinguish that installation type from multiboot, where one finds the expected multiple operating systems installed to different partitions. When OS/2 was first developed, it was intended to be an upgrade path for DOS users. Dual boot was created in part to ease the transition, to provide some comfort to those in fear of giving up DOS for a new OS. Also, the earliest versions of OS/2 didn't have bulletproof DOS support, and booting DOS was necessary for running certain unsupported DOS software, such as some games, and later, M$ Windoze 3.0 on OS/2 versions that didn't include M$ Windoze support. -- "The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power." General Douglas MacArthur Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html
Felipe Leon wrote:
First of all, dual booting is booting more than one OS off the same bootable partition. Installing more than one OS to more than one partition and using a boot manager to choose the system to boot is called multibooting.
Geoffrey wrote:
Have you a resource for your defintion?
You snipped it from your reply. Here's another: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Multiboot-with-GRUB.html You'll notice the title is not >"Dualboot-with-GRUB".
I don't believe you!
You can believe whatever you choose. Maybe you need to write a "Dualboot-with-GRUB" FAQ. See how far you get getting it accepted.
The word "dual" comes from the latin word /duo/ which means TWO, 1+1.
No kidding!
If you install and boot two different operating systems on your machine (OBVIOUSLY
How is that obvious? They don't necessarily have to go in separate partitions.
in different partitions) you will have a "dual booting", if you install MORE than TWO OS (and decide to boot them), then you no longer have "dual booting" but "multi-booting", simple!
Not simple. You can have dual booting (two disparate operating systems on a single partition), and multibooting (operating systems on 2 or more partitions) on the same system at the same time, anything but simple. How does one distinguish dual from multi? Simple as reserving the word dual for single boot partition systems, as IBM did in PC antiquity.
Until you come up with credible evidence for your claim, Im afraid you will have to re-check your information sources.
I won't have to recheck anything. All you need do is read an ancient IBM OS/2 manual. My oldest one is a bit new, 1993 for version 2.1. -- "The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power." General Douglas MacArthur Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html
Felix Miata wrote:
I won't have to recheck anything. All you need do is read an ancient IBM OS/2 manual. My oldest one is a bit new, 1993 for version 2.1.
This is ludicrous. You're basing your definition on a document regarding OS/2? Since when does such a reference define a term? I've seen discussions regarding dual-boot and multi-boot regarding PCs for as long as your OS/2 reference. dual-boot has always been in reference to a PC booting two OSs. Multi-boot has always been in reference to a PC which boots two or more OSs. Dualboot/Multiboot terms don't carry any definitive indicator as to the actual location of the OSs on the drive/partition. Boot is short for bootstrap defined as 'loading and initializing the operating system.' Dual/multi defines a quantity. Feel free to use your own definition as you see fit, but don't assume you can force it upon others because of an antiquated document on a has been OS. -- Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@3times25.net Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
Geoffrey wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
I won't have to recheck anything. All you need do is read an ancient IBM OS/2 manual. My oldest one is a bit new, 1993 for version 2.1.
This is ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is refusing to follow a sensible lead by the company that created the subject matter in the first place. IBM called it "dual boot" to distinguish that installation type from multiboot, where one finds the expected two *or more* operating systems installed to different partitions. When OS/2 was first developed, it was intended to be an upgrade path for DOS users. Dual boot was created in part to ease the transition, to provide some comfort to those in fear of giving up DOS for a new OS. Also, the earliest versions of OS/2 didn't have bulletproof DOS support, and booting DOS was necessary for running certain unsupported DOS software, such as some games, and later, M$ Windoze 3.0 on OS/2 versions that didn't include M$ Windoze support.
You're basing your definition on a document regarding OS/2?
Just like basing a number of other PC standard terms upon those used by IBM when it created the original IBM PC and IBM PC-AT upon which the industry standardized the clones. IBM coined the terms, and the industry followed along.
Since when does such a reference define a term? I've seen discussions regarding dual-boot and multi-boot regarding PCs for as long as your OS/2 reference.
You've been dual booting since the late '80's, when IBM conceived the concept of two different operating systems co-existing on the same PC partition?
dual-boot has always
Always is a long time, predating and outliving you.
been in reference to a PC booting two OSs. Multi-boot has always been in reference to a PC which boots two or more OSs.
Then how do you distinguish the two? If you don't, why don't you? As you say, multi-boot is two or more. Why not stick to using the one term, like the Linux howto title?
Dualboot/Multiboot terms don't carry any definitive indicator as to the actual location of the OSs on the drive/partition. Boot is short for bootstrap defined as 'loading and initializing the operating system.' Dual/multi defines a quantity.
Dual is correct only for exactly two, while multi is correct for any integer greater than one. Placing Win98 and WinXP and SuSE 8.2 and Mandrake 9.1 on the same system is not dual boot. Even sharing only W2K and SuSE 9.0 on a system is more sensibly called multi than dual, because it doesn't magically change when as so often happens the third OS or additional are added, such as when the next beta distro or win version is added to the system and the existing needs to be preserved as fallback to survive the beta period, or rather than as beta simply to compare in order to choose a survivor. The terms are ancient convention, like the modern convention for locating particular types of files in particular directories. It isn't necessary to place particular files in particular directories, but following convention makes a lot of things easier.
Feel free to use your own definition as you see fit, but don't assume
I use it because it makes sense, and because it's a fine old convention coined by the originator of the hardware genre, without which none of us would be here.
you can force it upon others because of an antiquated document on a has been OS.
So has been that its latest version is newer than XP. Major banks still use it, and probably your favorite ATM, things with little tolerance for anything that isn't rock solid. -- "The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power." General Douglas MacArthur Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/partitioningindex.html
Yo Low-IQ boys! Re-read the purpose of this damn list. What is it? Is it "whine"? Nope. Take this incredibly stupid crap off the list. Nobody else signed up for it. And for the love of Goddess, this is proof positive of a desperate need to get a damn life. Get one while you quit *intentionally* violating the purpose of this list. Don't go away mad. Just go away. Joe
Well said! At 08:28 AM 1/19/2004, you wrote:
Yo Low-IQ boys!
Re-read the purpose of this damn list.
What is it?
Is it "whine"? Nope.
Take this incredibly stupid crap off the list. Nobody else signed up for it.
And for the love of Goddess, this is proof positive of a desperate need to get a damn life.
Get one while you quit *intentionally* violating the purpose of this list.
Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Joe
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Multivariant and stochastic http://www.geocities.com/FoundationForChemistry
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Damon Register -
Felipe Leon -
Felix Miata -
Geoffrey -
James Knott -
Joe Sullivan -
John Andersen -
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.