21 replies to this topic

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

Hello

I'm using linux in order to install grub over various partitions via grub shell. This grub shell which is invoked by running /usr/local/bin/grub (or /usr/bin/grub), is not created in newer versions of g4d!

Versions tested are:

 

0.4.5c-2016-01-18

0.4.6a-2016-08-06

 

The good version in my hand which includes this shell is:

 

0.4.4-2009-03-31

 

Which is downloaded from

http://download.gna.org/grub4dos/

 

[tinybit]

The GRUB util for Linux has been deleted since then.

 

bootlace.com can be used to install the grub4dos boot record onto the MBR or onto the boot area of each volume.

 

And a new utility called WEE is a better solution for installing onto the MBR of the local hard drive.

 

WEE can be downloaded here:

 

https://github.com/c...r/grubutils/wee

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

Hello

Thank you for your responce.

It is strange! Usually a feature is never abandoned unless a much better alternative is implemented. In this case, a very good feature is compromised to a very bad alternative!! Note that bootlace.com only in recent versions of grub (0.4.6) has got improvements and can work directly over the device while grub shell is deleted a long time ago! This happens in a condition that some advanced users even recommend not using 0.4.6 due to its bugs!

Is grub walking in the right path?

Sorry, I haven't studied WEE yet, but it isn't also a good idea to install a program via a second one.

Another question: Where one can read about reasons of grub4dos' departure from gna.org and sourceforge.net?

[Wonko the Sane]

And using 0.4.4 2009-03-31 is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED (I know that it is the last version on Source forge BUT it is a "buggy" version).
If - for whatever reasons - one wants a "good" 0.4.4 version the one to be used is the 0.4.4 2009-10-16
http://reboot.pro/to...16641-grub4dos/
http://reboot.pro/fi...e/175-grub4dos/
 

It is strange! Usually a feature is never abandoned unless a much better alternative is implemented. In this case, a very good feature is compromised to a very bad alternative!! Note that bootlace.com only in recent versions of grub (0.4.6) has got improvements and can work directly over the device while grub shell is deleted a long time ago!

An advanced Linux user - just for the record - would probably write quickly a bash script using dd to install grub4dos anyway.
Or use a hex editor.
The other people can use *any* DOS or Windows, where bootlace.com has always installed grub4dos to the MBR quite nicely, and there are quite a few other utilities/tools (both DOS/Windows and Linux to obtain the same, *like*:.

http://reboot.pro/to...ox-for-windows/

http://reboot.pro/to...ive-from-linux/

http://reboot.pro/to...dows-and-linux/

 

And there is even an online installer 

http://apps.farterso...dbootlacer/main
 

This happens in a condition that some advanced users even recommend not using 0.4.6 due to its bugs!
Is grub walking in the right path?
Sorry, I haven't studied WEE yet, but it isn't also a good idea to install a program via a second one.

Sure, life is tough.
 

Another question: Where one can read about reasons of grub4dos' departure from gna.org and sourceforge.net?

Strangely enough in a STICKY (pinned topic) right here:
http://reboot.pro/fo...m/66-grub4dos/ 

http://reboot.pro/topic/14-grub4dos/

You know, like the first topic someone new to grub4dos should read on this board...

 

Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

And using 0.4.4 2009-03-31 is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED (I know that it is the last version on Source forge BUT it is a "buggy" version).
If - for whatever reasons - one wants a "good" 0.4.4 version the one to be used is the 0.4.4 2009-10-16
http://reboot.pro/to...16641-grub4dos/
http://reboot.pro/fi...e/175-grub4dos/

Whithout source and cannot be compiled.

 

An advanced Linux user - just for the record - would probably write quickly a bash script using dd to install grub4dos anyway.
Or use a hex editor.

Just for the record, a setup is created to do common things automatically and avoid all users to process these stages manually.

I am advanced linux user and recently wrote a long scrip according to README_GRUB4DOS, but I dont know why it doesn't work:

 

#!/bin/bash

get bs of $1 > MYPART.TMP
if $1=NTFS then get 16 else one; fi
bootlace.com --floppy=Y --sectors-per-track=S --heads=H --start-sector=B --total-sectors=C --vfat --ext2 --ntfs MYPART.TMP
put MYPART.TMP >$1

 

 

The other people can use *any* DOS or Windows, where bootlace.com has always installed grub4dos to the MBR quite nicely, and there are quite a few other utilities/tools (both DOS/Windows and Linux to obtain the same, *like*:.

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

The other people can use *any* DOS or Windows, where bootlace.com has always installed grub4dos to the MBR quite nicely, and there are quite a few other utilities/tools (both DOS/Windows and Linux to obtain the same, *like*:.

Installing a boot manager to MBR is not usually a good idea because when a new operating system is installed, overwrites it. MBR is better left to load the active partition only.

 

 

And there is even an online installer 

http://apps.farterso...dbootlacer/main
 

Sure, life is tough.

A program package should be self setup.

 

 

Sure, life is tough.

There is hope.

 

 

Strangely enough in a STICKY (pinned topic) right here:
http://reboot.pro/fo...m/66-grub4dos/ 

http://reboot.pro/topic/14-grub4dos/

You know, like the first topic someone new to grub4dos should read on this board...

 

Strangely abbastanza
First link is the home page of reboot.pro,

Second one, never told "Why?"!

Let me ask my question another way: Are current grub4dos developers in chenall, the original founders of it?

 

Thank you for your help and notice.

[tinybit]

I am advanced linux user and recently wrote a long scrip according to README_GRUB4DOS, but I dont know why it doesn't work:

 

#!/bin/bash

get bs of $1 > MYPART.TMP
if $1=NTFS then get 16 else one; fi
bootlace.com --floppy=Y --sectors-per-track=S --heads=H --start-sector=B --total-sectors=C --vfat --ext2 --ntfs MYPART.TMP
put MYPART.TMP >$1

 

You didn't say how it did not work. Anyway, the reason could be one of:

 

1. You got the wrong data of the partition boot blocks.

2. Bootlace.com executed without success.

3. You failed writing the data back to partition boot blocks.

4. You used an incorrect value of Y for the partition number. (Also check the correctness of S, H, B and C.)

5. The partition type is not supported, say, EXT4, reiser, etc.

6. The bootlace.com is buggy. (Try 0.4.5c if 0.4.6a failed.)

7. BIOS is buggy, it cannot access a partition beyond 128G limit.

8. Your MBR did not transfer the correct DL register(i.e., the drive number, usually 80h) to the partition's boot record.

9. Other unknown reasons.

 

A program package should be self setup.

 

Right. But things are not always ideal. This is not strange: A developer or a software can do a portion of a work excellently, but not for the whole.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

 

Whithout source and cannot be compiled.

 

You'd better start actually READING the info given to you:

http://reboot.pro/to...16641-grub4dos/

 

WHAT do you think is in the atachment to this post here?

http://reboot.pro/to...b4dos/?p=151907

http://reboot.pro/in...attach_id=13383

 

Whether it compiles or not, it's another thing, but the source is right there.

 

And we will have to work on your definition of "long" (and of "advanced")  if the 5 (five) lines you posted represent a "long" script written by an "advanced" user.

 

Let me rephrase:
The other people can use *any* DOS or Windows, where bootlace.com has always installed grub4dos to the MBR or to the PBR quite nicely, and there are quite a few other utilities/tools (both DOS/Windows and Linux to obtain the same, *like*:.

 

Anyway, thank you for letting us know how the project took a wrong direction some 7 years ago.

 

Seriously now, what is the actual problem you are trying to solve ? 

If you describe what the problem at hand is, I am pretty sure that people will try and assist you in solving it. .

 

 

Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

You didn't say how it did not work. Anyway, the reason could be one of:

 

1. You got the wrong data of the partition boot blocks.

2. Bootlace.com executed without success.

3. You failed writing the data back to partition boot blocks.

4. You used an incorrect value of Y for the partition number. (Also check the correctness of S, H, B and C.)

5. The partition type is not supported, say, EXT4, reiser, etc.

6. The bootlace.com is buggy. (Try 0.4.5c if 0.4.6a failed.)

7. BIOS is buggy, it cannot access a partition beyond 128G limit.

8. Your MBR did not transfer the correct DL register(i.e., the drive number, usually 80h) to the partition's boot record.

9. Other unknown reasons.

 

And we will have to work on your definition of "long" (and of "advanced")  if the 5 (five) lines you posted represent a "long" script written by an "advanced" user.

My friends, That was obviously a fun    It is not a real script, It is a funny translation of these steps:

================================

Step 1. Get the boot sectors of the partition and save to a file MYPART.TMP. For NTFS, you need to get the beginning 16 sectors. For other type of filesystems, you only need to get one sector, [...]
Step 2. Run this:
    bootlace.com --floppy=Y --sectors-per-track=S --heads=H --start-sector=B --total-sectors=C --vfat --ext2 --ntfs MYPART.TMP
    [...]
Step 3. Put MYPART.TMP back on to the boot sector(s) of your original partition (hdX,Y).

================================

I apologize because I assumed members are all familiar with bash. I was going to reduce too much seriousness of discussion.

Neither I am advanced nor that script was long.

 

 

Anyway, thank you for letting us know how the project took a wrong direction some 7 years ago.

You went that wrong because I wasn't with you

 

 

Seriously now, what is the actual problem you are trying to solve ? 

If you describe what the problem at hand is, I am pretty sure that people will try and assist you in solving it. .

Me in turn, appreciate the huge work done to reach this project to this point.

As an ordinary user, I feel I should help the project by test, bug report or feature request. I cannot already help coding or patching. Though prizing is needed and effective, but I believe the main factor who improves a work is criticism.

I requested my dear friends to re-establish the /usr/local/bin/grub, but its up to you to do or not. Everyhow, I use the program for its rich capabilities and usages.

 

Cheers to you all, Thanks for helps 

Edited by Bahram_Alinezhad, 18 September 2016 - 05:00 PM.

[Wonko the Sane]

 

Let me ask my question another way: Are current grub4dos developers in chenall, the original founders of it?

Chenall is a person (not a place or a site) and one of the current Authors/Developers/Mantainers of grub4dos, which is hosted in the most recent releases (since 2014) on his site.

Another very relevant contributor is currently YaYa (who is another person).

One of the original Authors is Tinybit (yet another person) whom you have just met, and that still contributes from time to time to the development of grub4dos.

Several other nice guys contributed to it over the years, at the time of the gna.org / sourceforge changes, the main  people involved, besides Tinybit were Bean and Climbing, if I recall correctly everything was moved from gna.org and sourceforge because somehow the access credentials were lost and then it was moved around a few places because the "usual" reasons, hosts shutting down, too much traffic, too much spam ...

 

 

 

 

 

I requested my dear friends to re-establish the /usr/local/bin/grub, but its up to you to do or not. Everyhow, I use the program for its rich capabilities and usages.

 

 

Not really, maybe that is what you meant but completely unlike the message that was received, which was more *like* :

 "I know everything, you are wrong, let me whine a bit about how much the development of grub4dos sucks"...

 

If the request actually was:

"My dear friends, can you re-establish the /usr/local/bin/grub?"

 

The reply would have been more *like*:

"The development of the grub shell has been abandoned some 7 years ago and replaced by bootlace.com (inside the grub4dos project) and grubinst (inside the grubutils project) and -besides - there are a number of third party tools that may be used to install grub4dos to either MBR or PBR."

 

Hey wait, you got more or less the same reply ...

 

Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

Chenall is a person (not a place or a site) [...]

grub4dos.chenall.net/

 

 

 

[...] and one of the current Authors/Developers/Mantainers of grub4dos, which is hosted in the most recent releases (since 2014) on his site.

Another very relevant contributor is currently YaYa (who is another person).

One of the original Authors is Tinybit (yet another person) whom you have just met, and that still contributes from time to time to the development of grub4dos.

Several other nice guys contributed to it over the years, at the time of the gna.org / sourceforge changes, the main  people involved, besides Tinybit were Bean and Climbing, if I recall correctly everything was moved from gna.org and sourceforge because somehow the access credentials were lost and then it was moved around a few places because the "usual" reasons, hosts shutting down, too much traffic, too much spam ...

Thanks, a bit convincing.

 

 

If the request actually was:

"My dear friends, can you re-establish the /usr/local/bin/grub?"

 

The reply would have been more *like*:

"The development of the grub shell has been abandoned some 7 years ago and replaced by bootlace.com (inside the grub4dos project) and grubinst (inside the grubutils project) and -besides - there are a number of third party tools that may be used to install grub4dos to either MBR or PBR."

 

Hey wait, you got more or less the same reply ...

 

Wonko

Not yet such a reply from developers. Maybe they do that in meantime or with a lower priority.

[Wonko the Sane]

Bahram_Alinezhad, on 19 Sept 2016 - 2:14 PM, said:
Not yet such a reply from developers. Maybe they do that in meantime or with a lower priority.

Actually ALMOST EXACTLY that reply from a developer (at the time the grub shell was abandoned, the main one, and surely among the ones that made the decision), with a corollary from someone that follows the project and its evolution since 2006 or so.

tinybit, on 16 Sept 2016 - 9:04 PM, said:
The GRUB util for Linux has been deleted since then.

bootlace.com can be used to install the grub4dos boot record onto the MBR or onto the boot area of each volume.

Do you need/want a signed, notarized affidavit certificating that:
1) the grub shell was abandoned circa 2009/2010
2) that its practical functionalities are since replicated by the use of bootlace.com or grubinst (besides a number of third party tools)
3) that the original developers, the current ones and all the ones in the middle agreed on this decision or at least did nothing to revert it
4) that in the many years since you are the first one to whine about this decision
?




Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

AFAIK, A "reply" is *after* "apply".

AFAIK, "after" means a time "greater" than the original time.

AFAIK, 2009 < 2016.

Thank you for teaching the new meaning of "ALMOST EXACTLY" :-)

 

Also according to whine-detector's logic, when someone wants to offer a request, should look for a previous similar one. Accordingly, the previous one is valid only if it would be the successor of another one earlier. Therefore, initiation is forbidden. This rule is important and should be respected.

 

This rule also has a brief form:

Two parties are not allowed to open a new topic: 1.The user   2.All others.

 

Thank you very much for understanding and cooperation.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

As a matter of fact the certification in #4 in my previous list was intended as a sign of appreciation for being the first one   (AFAICR) to whine about this decision by the developers.

Once having appreciated your initiative, and given you credit for the innovative request , still facts remains.

 

You have been:

1) told what happened

2) explained how the decision was made (new tools were developed replacing that one)

3) re-told how there are several, all valid and working ways to install grub4dos to MBR or PBR and that because of this it is highly unlikely that the grub shell will ever be re-vamped by the Authors of grub4dos

 

If you really believe that this revamping of the grub shell is needed, and that is an important "missing piece" of the current grub4dos development, and you want to bring it to the attention of the current grub4dos developer/mantaier (who is Chenall), by all means post here:
 https://github.com/c...grub4dos/issues

your feature request or bug report.

 

Though Chenall from time to time comes to reboot.pro, it is possible that he may overlook/miss this thread, while he will surely notice a request made on the github page.

 

Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

If you really believe that this revamping of the grub shell is needed, and that is an important "missing piece" of the current grub4dos development, and you want to bring it to the attention of the current grub4dos developer/mantaier (who is Chenall), by all means post here:
 https://github.com/c...grub4dos/issues

your feature request or bug report.

A real help.

I am now testing bootlace.com and will come back when inspected it well.

...

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

bootlace.com of 0.4.6 works. It loads grldr from root (and only root) of the partition on which it is installed. This looks good.

Even so, I have created a request in github:

https://github.com/c...4dos/issues/127

[tinybit]

I don‘t think the current maintainers would restore the grub util. Not only the grub util was removed, but also the setup/install commands, and some other commands/features. It is unlikely that a deleted feature would be restored for just one person, IMHO.

 

Just for your info, there exists a grub4dos branch based on grub4dos-0.4.4 which you might be interested in:

 

http://puppylinux.org/wikka/GRUBforDOS

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

There is nothing new there. Even their download links are from old gna and sourceforge versions.

[tinybit]

There is nothing new there. Even their download links are from old gna and sourceforge versions.

 

It seems they made some changes/improvements, eg., added ext4 support(if I am not mistaken).

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

It seems they made some changes/improvements, eg., added ext4 support(if I am not mistaken).

I doubt for any changes. If you see support for EXT4 there, it is natural because EXT3 and EXT4, as you know, are basically the same EXT2 with special features:

ext3 = has_journal

ext4 = has_journal,extent,huge_file,flex_bg,uninit_bg,dir_nlink,extra_isize

As long as only basic read/write of files are required, any program supporting ext2 can also support ext3/4.

Anyhow, thank you for your help and reply.

[Wonko the Sane]

@Bahram_Alinezhad

Maybe you could download the grub4dos-0.4.4.v1.9.2.pet mentioned here:

http://puppylinux.or...dos?redirect=no

from:

http://shino.pos.to/linux/puppy/ 

http://shino.pos.to/....4.4.v1.9.2.pet

once you will have inspected its content, you might be able to find in it \usr\sbin\grub4dosconfig which SURPRISE! begins with:

#!/bin/sh
# grub4dosconfig

it is a bash script that (using if needed bootlace.com underneath) helps in "installing" grub4dos.

 

Ext4 compatibility/support (that is/was not "full" in the obsolete grub4dos version that ships with it) has been reached using (or misusing) Wee (also shipped in a now obsolete verson), as you can read here (also in the .pet):
http://shino.pos.to/...4dosconfig.html

 

 

(Add for v1.6)
Supporting ext4 file system was partially as for the grub4dosconfig-0.4.4.v1.5.x. It required the help of grub legacy as for the etx4. grub4dosconfig-0.4.4.v1.6 has now ext4 full support thanks to the 'Wee' for the MBR.

 

Now try guessing WHO wrote Wee? (Hint: you already met him here ... )
http://reboot.pro/to...om/#entry102931

 

Now, for no apparent reason:

 

Spoiler

 

Wonko

[Bahram_Alinezhad]

With or without shell, the project is still usable.

I'm using 0.4.4 because it had developers without someone appointed to praise them.