[syslinux] Advice/directions to users of Syslinux

Ady ady-sf at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 22 01:53:15 PST 2014


> Hi,
> 
> i now realized that
>   http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Hardware_Compatibility#USB-Geometry
>   http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Hardware_Compatibility#USB-Miscellaneous
> are the new wiki sections by Gene Cumm. (Sorry for not reading
> them when they were announced.)
> 
> So i ask especially him whether the statement
> 
>  "An examle is a drive of 128,64,32 with a partition ending at
>   127,63,32 (the last sector of the last whole cylinder)."
> 
> should be changed and expanded to
> 
>  "An example is a drive of size of 128 MB (or slightly larger)
>   assumed with 64 heads per cylinder and 32 sectors per head,
>   where the partition should end at 127,63,32.
>   Drives larger than 1 GB should be regarded as having 255 heads
>   per cylinder and 63 sectors per head. E.g. an drive of
>   15794176 blocks (7.5 GB) should have its partition end
>   at 982,254,63.
>   Drives larger than 16434495 blocks should bear as partition
>   end 1023,254,63. Setting the partition end LBA to the full drive
>   size may or may not hamper its bootability."
> 
> Reasoning:
> 
> I state "assumed with 64 heads per cylinder and 32 sectors per head"
> because the values of H/C and S/H are more or less a deliberate
> decision at partitioning time.
> 
> I refrain from giving the drive size in CHS, because this is ambigous
> until the user has chosen H/C and S/H.
> 
> I do not use digit separators with decimal naumers (15,794,176
> versus 15794176) because this could get confused with the CHS
> commas.
> 
> I mention the opportunity to set the end LBA higher than the end CHS
> because else half of a 16 GB drive would be wasted.
> But maybe one should rather state that if a BIOS is too dumb for
> uneven partiton endings, then it is probably too dumb for large
> partitions, too.
> Any experience around ? Any opinions ?
> 
> The advise to set large drive ends to 1023,254,63 is taken from
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record#Partition_table_entries
> 
> 
 
A relatively modern partitioning tool (not from the '80s) would 
already include adequate support for LBA, and for MiB alignment. If 
we are trying to help non-technical users, we shouldn't be adding 
information that could make their lives more complex.

That's why I mentioned in recent emails in this Syslinux mailing list 
that the short answer (which a non-technical user having problems 
with partitions would appreciate) is to:
1_ "create a new DOS partition table";
2_ create a new partition;
3_ format it.

By adding technical details, it makes it harder for a non-technical 
user to follow, and such user will probably go away looking for a 
simpler answer.

If a user doesn't know what "create a new DOS partition table" means, 
there are many ways to find out, including a web search. There are 
many tutorials. There are tools such as GParted Live (and many 
others) specially design to be user friendly. BTW, GParted has 
tutorials and manuals and mailing list and forums. And GParted is not 
the only one.

If a non-technical user finds that following technical instructions 
is a bit (too) difficult, then probably adding technical details is 
not the best way to help them.

As a simple user, I find that some words / wording / writing styles 
can be confusing, or not so clear as originally intended. For 
example, when using words such as "should". Is that a recommendation? 
Is that a requirement? Is that a condition imposed by USB drives? Is 
that a Syslinux requirement? (To clarify, I am not really asking for 
an answer. I am making a point about what a common user might 
interpret from such wording.)

In this particular case, I happen to understand what Thomas is trying 
to explain. But if I put myself in the position of a user that 
doesn't understand the whole partitions / format / booting 
"ramblings", a user who is interested in trying for the first time a 
USB Live Linux distro and not in a whole course about these technical 
matters, I am not sure such user would understand, or be even 
interested in understanding. Add to the mix a user whose native 
language is not English.

Having an adequate partitioning scheme and an adequate formatted 
volume is a requirement to work with these type of (USB) media, not 
just for Syslinux.

If there is one advantage that a simple user can say about Syslinux 
is that it is relatively simple to use.

IMHO, adding information to (and updating documentation already in) 
the wiki is a good thing. But I doubt a simple user would be 
interested in reading and understanding *that* much, specially when 
he is having a problem. Let me put it this way: if I have a problem 
with my car and I can't get to where I need to, I just want the 
problem solved. I might be interested in learning how to repair cars, 
but that's not the moment.

In particular, I would like to avoid even the *perception* that 
Syslinux is difficult, or that is Syslinux the one generating some 
problem with the (USB) media. Syslinux is related to the partitioning 
scheme as much as a spreadsheet or a word processor; it just needs to 
be correctly done.

A correct partitioning scheme (including an adequate MBR's booting 
code) is a necessity for every bootloader, and for using any other 
software on a personal computer.

If I would need to solve these type of problems, I would probably be 
looking on other places, with simple instructions / tutorials.

 
 *** 

In particular, SYSLINUX is not installed in the MBR, like other 
bootloaders (e.g. grub2) might do.

Syslinux has some pros and cons. Each bootloader has them.

Considering the (very) reduced (to say the least) support that "big 
names" are giving to The Syslinux Project, while providing _direct_ 
support for other bootloader projects, I find myself... 
uncomfortable(?) with the idea / implication that The Syslinux 
Project is not making enough to help users with their booting issues. 
In fact, Syslinux makes it simpler for the vast majority of common 
users.

This is just my personal opinion and nothing else.

BTW, I am sure some additional development muscle is very welcome and 
needed, 
and users are eager to see Syslinux improve.

Regards,
Ady.


More information about the Syslinux mailing list