Traduisez - Übersetzen - Traduzca - Traduza - Tradurre - Translate

Re: Loadlin vs Lilo debate

Richard Chycoski (richard@wizard.ucs.sfu.ca)
Mon, 21 Jul 97 07:42:42 -0700

> From: "Ya`akov N. Miles" <satan@darkstar.204.244.247.1>
>
> I prefer to use LOADLIN because:
>
> 1) It loads faster than LILO
> 2) Since it works off a DOS partition, and my DOS partition is less
> than 1024 cylinders, I do not need to worrry about disk placement.
> 3) I have never known LOADLIN to trash a disk (unlike LILO)
> 4) LOADLIN will handle bigger images than LILO
> 5) You can set up your plug-and-play peripherals under DOS and access
> them in LINUX if you use LOADLIN

I have used LILO on most of my machines, but am using Loadlin on one machine now because LILO was
being uncooperative about installing.

The time it takes to load Linux is so insignificant in either case that load time isn't an issue
with me. Also, it usually takes less time for LILO to load than the combination of booting DOS and
running Loadlin.

I've never had LILO trash a disk (touch wood!).

A major plus: I can put LILO on a machine and not include one iota of Microsoft code! (:-)

For Plug and Pray on some machines, I have sometimes found it necessary to boot the machine in
another OS (e.g., Windows '95) and then reboot in Linux, but subsequent reboots in Linux seem to
work fine. My main beef with Plug and Play is when mulitbooting between various OSes that all
think they have *the* answer for how to configure my devices, which then cease to work under a
different OS. Plug and Play should *never* have been implemented on ISA-bus cards!

---
- Richard Chycoski
  Senior Systems Consultant
  Simon Fraser University
  Academic Computing Services
  richard@sfu.ca