Re: [BLUG] My Ubuntu/Linux bitch

Presenting the grub prompt is a good indication that there is no grub
config file present. 0.97 is the first version of Grub, so most of
the documentation should be talking about that version unless they
explicitly mention the version as being "1.x", "grub2", or references to
an experimental "pupa" version.

Here's the history: The first version of GRUB was version 0.x. It was
rewritten from scratch and the earlier stages of that process was called
"pupa". This rewrite is what became the official 1.x line. As it was the
second major release of GRUB, the Debian packages are called "grub2".
Other folks and documentation probably also call it "grub2". Note,
however, that Debian has a habit of going with names which are contrary
to officially sanctioned names due to convention. (In particular, they
call Apache HTTPd 2.x "apache2", even though this is like calling the
Microsoft Office 2002 product Microsoft 2002. Apache is a group name,
not a product name.)

With the correct commands you can boot your target partition directly
from the grub prompt. With a boot disk you may be able to resolve
the issue simply by booting to CD, mounting your /boot partition and
creating a "/boot/grub/menu.lst" file.

Please note, though, that the exact location of the grub menu.lst file
varies by distribution. I know RedHat has used other locations (or was
that other file names -- like /boot/grub.conf) instead, but I do not
know what location your version of CentOS uses.

Cheers and good luck,
Steven Black

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 04:06:41PM -0500, Kelly McEvilly wrote:
> I've got a knoppix disk I boot bad windows machines with. Suppose I'll give that a try.
>
> The box actually reads:
>
> GNU GRUB version 0.97
>
> so I suppose I'll start my googling there. I'm guessing the GRUB thing
> is coming up because it can't figure out what to boot to.
>

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug