Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 01 Jan 2003 21:09:31 -0500
From:      Jud <judmarc@fastmail.fm>
To:        edifice <warehou@sina.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: How to see bootloader menu name correct?
Message-ID:  <opricn95yl0cf2rk@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301011951240.19553-100000@janeway.vonbek.dhs.org>
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301011951240.19553-100000@janeway.vonbek.dhs.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:54:16 -0500 (EST), John Bleichert 
<syborg@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, edifice wrote:
>> Subject: How to see bootloader menu name correct?
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I install Win2000 and FreeBSD on my machine. When boot, it display:
>> F1: ??
>> F3: ??
>> F4: FreeBSD
>> How to make the F1 correctly display the name "Windows 2000"?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Edifice
>> -- edifice <warehou@sina.com>
>>
>
> I believe the FreeBSD bootloader gets it's Fn labels by reading the 
> filesystem type of the partitions, and in your case you get ???s because 
> it doesn't know anything about NTFS. You may be out of luck, unless you 
> want to hack the FreeBSD bootloader and submmit it back to the project :)
>
> Seriously though, nobody seems too interested in fixing this issue, 
> understandably.
[snip]

[My bad - forgot to copy the list and edifice on my initial reply.]

I'd describe the problem differently than the bootloader not knowing 
anything about NTFS.  First, Windows NT, 2000, and XP all share the same 
filesystem, which MS calls "NTFS."  That filesystem type is also used by 
IBM's OS/2, where it is referred to as "HPFS."  I believe QNX may use this 
type as well.
 
Bootloaders are severely limited in size.  There isn't room to provide for 
all the possible choices per various filesystem types (as we've seen, 4 or 
5 at least for type 7; this isn't the only duplication - type 82, for 
example, is used by both Sun Solaris and Linux swap).  Boot managers like 
Grub and the one used by MS with NT/W2K/XP get around the size limitation 
by allowing users to insert names for the various boot items in config 
files that are not actually part of the bootloader itself.  I don't know 
for sure, but my guess is that rewriting the FreeBSD bootloader as a boot 
manager with a config file would essentially mean creating from scratch 
something on the level of Grub.  So why do so when Grub is already in the 
ports?

-- 
Jud

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opricn95yl0cf2rk>