Page 1 of 1

BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:42 pm
by Liam
Hi, has anyone ever come across BackBox? I was happily playing with Solaris 10, Windows 7, FreeBSD 9.2 and Windows XP, when I decided to try THIS one. Even after deleting everything and starting again, including updating to the brand new BIBM 1.23, it just keeps overwriting everything.

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:21 pm
by TeraByte Support
I would presume you'd just uninstall it?

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:51 am
by Liam
Hi, I have moved on to Kali Linux 1.0.5. I can install either Kali OR Solaris 10, and boot it from Bootit BM, but whenever I install the other OS, I need to re-install Bootit BM and neither partition is bootable. Any ideas?

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:02 am
by DrTeeth
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:51:40 PST, just as I was about to take a herb,
Liam disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>Any ideas?

1) Some distros will not allow the boot loader to be placed in a
partition, only the drive's MBR (e.g Fedora)

2) Some distros necessitate the reinstall of BIBM even though the boot
loader has been installed into the OS partition (e.g. openSUSE).

3) Try not just hiding partitions, but try delting them from the EMBR
before installing.

I have loads of distros installed across my 6 PCs and only have probs,
if not paying attention, with MSoft viruses, aka OSs.
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:13 am
by TeraByte Support
You need to install the kernel loader to the partition where it should be
instead of the mbr.

"Liam" wrote in message news:7113@public.tech.misc...

Hi, I have moved on to Kali Linux 1.0.5. I can install either Kali OR
Solaris 10, and boot it from Bootit BM, but whenever I install the other OS,
I need to re-install Bootit BM and neither partition is bootable. Any ideas?


Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:28 pm
by DrTeeth
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:13:50 PST, just as I was about to take a herb,
"TeraByte Support" disturbed my
reverie and wrote:

>You need to install the kernel loader to the partition where it should be
>instead of the mbr.

These days, some installers do not allow one to do that. For e.g.
Fedora and Manjaro (0.8.8).
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Re: BackBox 3.09 / FreeBSD

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:31 am
by Liam
Hi, thanks very much for the replies.
I don't know if I should open a new post now, or what.
My current situation is that I made each O/S visible to the other one, and I now have Solaris 10 and Kali Linux (which I used LILO for, instead of Grub) both running. However, when I try to install FreeBSD 9.2, by a process which worked when it was the first O/S to be installed, I can't get past the partitioning. It says the device doesn't support it. I am using a Panasonic CF-18 laptop and a suitable USB CDROM. Have I hit a hardware problem? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:17 am
by Liam
Cancel that! I hid the other O/Ss and it's worked. Does that make sense?

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:48 am
by Liam
I know I'm getting carried away, now, but has anyone ever installed Plan9 with a USB CDROM?

Re: BackBox 3.09

PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:15 pm
by Liam
Nope, no good.
After reading an outdated post about FreeBSD, and trying to carry out the info before stumbling across newer stuff and deciding to get rid of the obsolete business..... here I go again. What is going on? I'm glad you don't PAY for this stuff!