GRUB is so idiotic

GRUB is so idiotic

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

I've probably ranted about GRUB before, but software this idiotic deserved not to be left in peace:

A partition on an external hard disk became corrupted, so I made the mistake to try to test if the other partitiions on same disk worked. These are linux partitions.

The firstpartition booted. Now first idiocy: linux forces a chkdisk on the other corrupted partition and tries to repair it. All without asking me anything.

Second stupidity: linux assumes that this is my main OS, so it infests grub on my other hard drive (which contains the boot partition). In essence, it destroyed the MBR of that disk and replaces it with a grub-contaminated code.

Now, Windows 7 doesnt contain the tools to correct this, in order to correct it you must fire up the sysrtem repair dvd. However, this dvd doesnt contain the satsa drivers to allow me to see my main boot disk.

A lot of trouble, all because of grub making a decision without asking me. This is not software — this is a trojan. Grub should be blacklisted by all antivirus programs. I can't imagine how stupid the guy who coded grub must have been. But he should be shot in the knee with a bullet.

User has been warned for this post. Felony 2.
0 x

User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by rattle »

this is why I have kept bootmgr on my harddisks and use neogrub on USB memory only to boot images
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3027
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by gajop »

@FA: This is what real FUD looks like :)
Jools wrote: The firstpartition booted. Now first idiocy: linux forces a chkdisk on the other corrupted partition and tries to repair it. All without asking me anything.
Linux only checks partitions you try to mount. While it may depend on your distro, in general, linux doesn't automatically repair (serious) errors and it instead prompts the user to manually input the fdisk command do it.
Jools wrote: Second stupidity: linux assumes that this is my main OS, so it infests grub on my other hard drive (which contains the boot partition). In essence, it destroyed the MBR of that disk and replaces it with a grub-contaminated code.
You are making this up, linux doesn't automatically install GRUB, why would it.. Further, you are confusing OS and bootloader, linux is used with multiple bootloaders: lilo, grub1, grub2, syslinux, and there is no kernel-level preference for grub.

Your distribution may prefer grub over others... but that usually gets installed at distribution installation time only. It usually automatically detects the windows partition and adds it to the grub.conf, but if it doesn't, you can do it yourself.

And lastly, it's usually Windows that overwrites the MBR section with a bootloader that can't be used to boot other OSes. GRUB on the other hand can probably boot all widespread OSes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_boot_loaders.
Jools wrote: Now, Windows 7 doesnt contain the tools to correct this, in order to correct it you must fire up the sysrtem repair dvd. However, this dvd doesnt contain the satsa drivers to allow me to see my main boot disk.

A lot of trouble, all because of grub making a decision without asking me.
So it seems like you figured up you can boot Windows 7 through GRUB... which makes me wonder what the problem is. You installed a Linux distro but you somehow expect to be able to use it without using a supported bootloader?

Also, GRUB didn't install anything itself, it was YOU that did it while installing your distribution.
Jools wrote: This is not software — this is a trojan. Grub should be blacklisted by all antivirus programs. I can't imagine how stupid the guy who coded grub must have been. But he should be shot in the knee with a bullet.
You see, that guy is probably much smarter than anyone who would suggest blocking a bootloader with an anti virus.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

gajop wrote: You are making this up, linux doesn't automatically install GRUB, why would it.. Further, you are confusing OS and bootloader, linux is used with multiple bootloaders: lilo, grub1, grub2, syslinux, and there is no kernel-level preference for grub.
Why would I make up something like this? I didn't accuse linux of anything, I specifically accused grub. Yes, grub was installed by my linux distro and I did it myself. However, this was on another computer and this is an external hard drive. It has nothing to do with my main computer. The linux distro is debian 2.6 I believe.

Grub is the primary reason I never started using linux. I like ubuntu and kubuntu, they are both nice. But I have always had problems with grub (it's actually grub2, but same shit). Too many scripts; hard to know what scripts edits what other script, too much mess. And it always injects something in my boot partition (yes, this is neither windows nor linux, it's just a boot partition)

Well, I'm telling you that linux did run fdisk without asking (it's stupidity to try to run chkdisk first without making an clone image, that's the third stupidity).

A good bootloader should not be dependent of what other os:es I have: I may unplug a hard disk whenever I want to and usually select the one I want to boot from bios anyway. Grub is really stupid. Much worse than windows in the way it tries to "help" the user but just makes things worse by assuming stupid things.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14630
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Forboding Angel »

Yes, GRUB is a big fat pile of shit. Agreed.

Image
0 x

User avatar
SpliFF
Posts: 1224
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 06:51

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by SpliFF »

Yay, an uninformed rant about linux.

It's clear from your post you have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly choosen a distro that takes the work out of your hands (Ubuntu?,Mandrake?) and then complain it did things without asking (when it really didn't - NO distro installs Grub without asking). You struggle with basic concepts like what a bootloader does and how fsck works yet you act like you know more than anybody else on the subject.

All you've demonstrated is that you should go back to using a Mac because you lack the right mentality to be a linux user or even the basic curtesy to ask for help the right way. Any number of people here on or IRC and other forums could have helped you with your problem but now we just hate you.
Jools wrote:Now, Windows 7 doesnt contain the tools to correct this...
Exactly. The problem is Windows 7 but you want to rant on Linux? Windows is in fact the OS that overrides the MBR (and often partitions) of other systems without asking (and can't boot their images) but here you are defending the wrong system. Next you'll be blaming linux for UEFI secureboot (if you knew anything about it that is).
Jools wrote:Well, I'm telling you that linux did run fdisk without asking (it's stupidity to try to run chkdisk first without making an clone image, that's the third stupidity).
chkdsk is a windows program, fdisk is a partition tool and it can't run automatically. You might be talking about fsck but who can tell from your nonsense? You can't even get the names of the tools right when you're having an opinion on them.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

Yeah, so I confused chkdisk and fsck, big deal. And to repeat: I didn't write that grub was installed automatically, of course it was installed with the os, and I did that. But that was many years before this problem anmd on another computer. Forget it. What happened is that when the os launched fsck it also "corrected" the bootloader on windows and injected a path to look for grub. Is that so hard to understand?

Maybe don't comment on a post if you haven't read it.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

Forboding Angel wrote:Yes, GRUB is a big fat pile of shit. Agreed.

Image
Windosws 7 doesn't ask you to reboot anymore. Maybe Win2k or xp did that. And even if it asks you to dos o, you just issue the command "net stop wuauserv". Problem solved.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1382
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Anarchid »

doesn't ask you to reboot
Invalid on two counts:

1) Yes it does. I keep win7 on dualboot to play an indie game i like once in a few months. it does occasionally tell me to reboot. Considering i noticed that while using the system for an average of one hour per month, that's quite often, too.

Of course maybe there's a magical way to avoid that, but that requires guru-level knowledge, and if i have guru-knowledge, why use windows at all?

2) Rebooting is still the go-to solution in windows world. It's just the culture that's been bashed into the windoze demographic for two decades. In mac, you buy new one; In linux, you become guru and fix. In windows, you reboot, reinstall, weep.

(or be always prepared, which doesn't hurt for other worlds too).
0 x

User avatar
SpliFF
Posts: 1224
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 06:51

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by SpliFF »

Jools wrote:Yeah, so I confused chkdisk and fsck, big deal.
apple != orange. Of course it's a big deal; you're talking shit about the wrong tools and expect to be taken seriously.
Jools wrote:And to repeat: I didn't write that grub was installed automatically,
You said: "A lot of trouble, all because of grub making a decision without asking me" and "linux assumes that this is my main OS, so it infests grub on my other hard drive". So either YOU installed grub or it was automatic - which is it?

Also the second statement is garbage. Linux "assumes" nothing, it gives you choices and you clearly made the wrong choice.
Jools wrote:What happened is that when the os launched fsck it also "corrected" the bootloader on windows and injected a path to look for grub. Is that so hard to understand?
Easy to understand? It's utter bullshit. The bootloader is outside your partition in the MBR. fsck and grub have nothing to do with each other. I don't believe for a second that fsck modified your MBR unless YOU forced it to fsck your WHOLE DISK (the block device rather than the partition).

The simple fact is you have no idea what's going on. Grub didn't wreck your computer, fsck didn't either - YOU DID. Deal with it.
Maybe don't comment on a post if you haven't read it.
Maybe don't comment on a tool if you don't understand it. Everyone here who understands these tools is laughing at you.*

* I bet $50 the only thing wrong is your disks swapped boot order when you pulled them out and you plugged them back in different SATA channels.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

SpliFF wrote:Also the second statement is garbage. Linux "assumes" nothing, it gives you choices and you clearly made the wrong choice.
Your statement is garbage. I wrote you that there was no question asked, linux did this repair automatically. Of course, my choice was to try to boot with linux, and that was a mistake. It won't happen again.
SpliFF wrote:I bet $50 the only thing wrong is your disks swapped boot order when you pulled them out and you plugged them back in different SATA channels.
You still didn't read well. It's an external disk. No SATA. USB. But maybe you think that's the same. The error in the bootcode wasn't big. Still, that's not the point. It's already fixed anyway.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

Anarchid wrote: Invalid on two counts:

1) Yes it does. I keep win7 on dualboot to play an indie game i like once in a few months. it does occasionally tell me to reboot. Considering i noticed that while using the system for an average of one hour per month, that's quite often, too.

Of course maybe there's a magical way to avoid that, but that requires guru-level knowledge, and if i have guru-knowledge, why use windows at all?
Because there are things you can do with windows that you cannot do with linux. I don't think that knowing how to stop a service from command line is guru of course. It's a basic thing in both windows and linux.
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by luckywaldo7 »

Removing the reminder to reboot is not removing the need to reboot.

You don't exactly want to go weeks without installing some security updates.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

Well, you can't have the cake and eat it (or you can't have a cake and eat as Bush says). Obviously the computer needs to reboot to patch those files that are already running. You cannot achieve this without rebooting. Or can you in linux?

But I don't believe in the danger that poses. You shouldn't be clicking on ominous links anyway, and you should have a firewall installed anyway.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1195
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by dansan »

This thread is funny.

The OP didn't make a proper description of how things happend. For example:
* Why did he boot Linux from a possibly damaged HDD in the 1st place?
* Why does he have an ext HDD with two Linux partitions? Is it possible that the installation on the booted partition does intentionally mount the 2nd partition, as they somehow belong together - seems logical, doesn't it? Or is it a swap partition?
* What distro did he boot?
* What version of grub is/was/got installed?
* How did you manage to install Linux on the extHDD? Was it once installed directly on SATA and then moved to USB?

Seriously - why such a amateurish discussion? You *always* insist on proper reporting of bugs from your users if it is your project - do it here too.

It is very possible, that a Linux distro tries to mount all possible partitions, if it was configured to do so. By default it does not - at least not ANY of the Linux distros I know.

If it then finds a partition that has errors that is thinks can be easily fixed (like wrong unlink count) it does that automatically without asking. You know that very well from when you have a crash, and your system boots and fixes the root fs. Ofc that has NEVER broken a fs, and I did have like 500 crashes in my Linux life for sure. But it is _theoretically_ possible.

A question: Does Windows really not include a tool to write a mbr? I think that's not true.

Now... Jools: pls check the /etc/fstab of the Linux on the extHDD. Does it include the 2nd partition? Does it use UUIDs, labels or partition-char/number-scheme (sda_)?
Is it possible that grub was configured to be installed on "/dev/sda"? And did you by any chance do a update while Linux was running? If yes - was grub updated, and thus reinstalled?

NOONE has ever heard of a case like yours, so it is very likely that it's a configuration error. The proper thing to do, is to find out what is wrongly configured. If you fear to boot Linux now, you can install ext for windows drivers, so you can read the Linux partitions from windows.
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

dansan wrote:This thread is funny.
Yes, I'm sure it is.
dansan wrote: * Why did he boot Linux from a possibly damaged HDD in the 1st place?
To see if the linux partitions worked.
dansan wrote: * Why does he have an ext HDD with two Linux partitions? Is it possible that the installation on the booted partition does intentionally mount the 2nd partition, as they somehow belong together - seems logical, doesn't it? Or is it a swap partition?
The external disk has 4 partitions, out of which one is linux distro, one is linux swap and one is fat32. The fat32 one became corrupted, wanted to check if linux could boot. It could, it booted, and it ran fsck.
dansan wrote: * What distro did he boot?
Linux debian 2.6
dansan wrote: * What version of grub is/was/got installed?
Probably grub2, but unsure if that works, so maybe it actually runs grub 1.
dansan wrote: * How did you manage to install Linux on the extHDD? Was it once installed directly on SATA and then moved to USB?
No, it was installed directly on usb. You can boot from usb. You can also boot from a live cd and install on a usb drive. Has worked at least 10+ years already. I don't know why everybody assumes the boot drive is sata. You can also boot from a ide, floppy, cd, zip and probably some other drive.
dansan wrote: Seriously - why such a amateurish discussion? You *always* insist on proper reporting of bugs from your users if it is your project - do it here too.
Because it's a rant and not a bug report :)

dansan wrote: A question: Does Windows really not include a tool to write a mbr? I think that's not true.
It is true. Windows recovery environment includes the proper tools (bootsect.exe), but that must be run from a dvd. Additionally, my main ssd is not a sata but an esata drive, which has it's drivers supplied by silicon image and not nvidia, so the recovery dvd didn't find the drivers automatically, and hence didn't see that drive. But that's another topic. But it was not straightforward to just boot the recovery dvd.
dansan wrote: If you fear to boot Linux now, you can install ext for windows drivers, so you can read the Linux partitions from windows.
I know windows has ext drivers, I used them before but didn't have them installed on current setup so I just booted the linux partition instead. I would actually like to find lilo instead of grub, because I like kubuntu otherwise quite well.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1195
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by dansan »

Jools wrote:
dansan wrote: * Why does he have an ext HDD with two Linux partitions? Is it possible that the installation on the booted partition does intentionally mount the 2nd partition, as they somehow belong together - seems logical, doesn't it? Or is it a swap partition?
The external disk has 4 partitions, out of which one is linux distro, one is linux swap and one is fat32. The fat32 one became corrupted, wanted to check if linux could boot. It could, it booted, and it ran fsck.
*What's the 4th partition?

If the fat32 partition is added to /etc/fstab and fack.vfat assumes the error is automatically repairable that'd explain it. It'd unfortunately that the fsck.vfat was wrong. Grub has not anything to do with this.
Jools wrote:
dansan wrote: Seriously - why such a amateurish discussion? You *always* insist on proper reporting of bugs from your users if it is your project - do it here too.
Because it's a rant and not a bug report :)
LOL right.
The tone of the discussion surprised me, so I didn't see that.
Jools wrote:Linux debian 2.6
grub1 for sure.
grub1 doesn't do anything crazy installs. But debian could have been configured to install grub on sda which can vary when booting from usb.

For this kind of scenario I recommend installing grub on the partition, not the mbr, and then set the partition with fdisk as the boot partition. the bios will do the rest, and changing drive letters will not overwrite any mbrs.
Jools wrote:
dansan wrote: A question: Does Windows really not include a tool to write a mbr? I think that's not true.
It is true.
That's crazy! Why in heavens name would they do that?
Jools wrote:I would actually like to find lilo instead of grub, because I like kubuntu otherwise quite well.
lilo will be more (though different) trouble.
0 x

User avatar
SpliFF
Posts: 1224
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 06:51

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by SpliFF »

Jools wrote:You still didn't read well. It's an external disk. No SATA. USB. But maybe you think that's the same. The error in the bootcode wasn't big. Still, that's not the point. It's already fixed anyway.
You don't write well. This is the first mention of any "error in the bootcode", what you actually claimed was that GRUB had overwritten your MBR. Frankly you seem to change the story every time somebody responds to you and it's still clear you're clueless about what's really happening. You also don't seem to understand that regardless of whether it's USB or SATA you have almost certainly changed your boot order because that's the ONLY reason you would see grub appearing on boot without an EXPLICIT installation.
Jools wrote:Second stupidity: linux assumes that this is my main OS, so it infests grub on my other hard drive (which contains the boot partition). In essence, it destroyed the MBR of that disk and replaces it with a grub-contaminated code.
Despite all of your attempts to blame GRUB this statement remains as ridiculous as when you first made it. It's simply you misunderstand what you did because:

* fsck does not run grub
- and -
* grub does not install itself, it requires user interaction or running an installer.

All things considered you are an annoying person who blames his tools and who won't admit he's wrong. I'm done with your crap. Enjoy Windows and leave linux to more intelligent people.
Jools wrote:
dansan wrote: A question: Does Windows really not include a tool to write a mbr? I think that's not true.
It is true.
> fdisk /mbr
or
> bootrec /fixmbr

So your knowledge about windows is as complete as your knowledge of linux it seems.
0 x

User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by rattle »

bootsect can prolly do it too
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2806
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: GRUB is so idiotic

Post by Jools »

Don't feed the trolls, but here it goes anyway:

bootsect /nt60 rewrites the boot data for windows 7 environments. It rewrites the bcd and puts BOOTMGR on the boot drive. bootsect /nt52 does the same for windows xp environments, it uses NTLDR instead of BOOTMGR.

I believe fdisk /mbr fixes the master boot record. bootrec /fixmbr is the same for windows 95 I think. It's older in any case.

However, it's not the mbr that is the problem, it's the bootsector or the bcd (same as grub but for windows). If mbr had been the problem, then I would not have found the partition info at all, even less so access files on the volume.

Anyway, fdisk is not present in windows 7 either, you have to access it from the recovery environment. In windows XP I think you have access to fdisk from a normal command prompt.


dansan wrote: *What's the 4th partition?
It's actually like this:
partition 1: linux boot, ext2
partition 2:: linux main thing, ext2
partition 3: linux swap, ext2
partition 4: ntfs

So I would want grub to be on the part 1 of this usb disk, but it must have installed something on the boot partition of my ssd drive, therefore overriding the bcd. I believe so, because after the fsck, when the usb-disk was plugged in, my computer would always boot to that drive, irrespective of the fact that my ssd drive was selected as the boot drive in the bios. Therefore I drew the conclusion that one form of grub was put on this ssd drive.
Last edited by Jools on 19 Mar 2013, 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”