FB 9.1 boot loader problem in VirtualBox

[Michael Powell]

Matthew Seaman wrote:

> On 06/01/2013 12:09, jb wrote:
>> A general question: to what extent is FB Install aware of installation
>> env (VB here) ?
>> If so, would it make sense to sanitize it to avoid offering install
>> options that are irrelevant/inappropriate ?
> 
> This is FreeBSD.  It doesn't hold your hand and wipe the drool off your
> chin.  You're assumed to know what you're doing, and to be able to
> configure your systems appropriately.  And when you do know, and can
> configure things, then it doesn't get in your way.
> 
> The installer doesn't know about all the various possible different
> execution environments it might get used in.   To do so would add a lot
> of complexity for not very much gain to most users.  Instead, it is
> targeted at the most common installation scenario: direct installation
> onto a PC with all the standard sort of capabilities.    This should
> produce a working system for the vast majority of use cases, but you may
> need to go in and twiddle a few knobs and generally tune things up a bit
> to get the very best results.
> 

The converse may be applicable as well, that Vbox has configurability to 
know a little something about the environment for the proposed guest. When 
creating a new VM, you can choose BSD in the Operating System drop-down and 
then choose FreeBSD or FreebSD-64. I've had no trouble installing the 9.1 
Release disk1 CD into a Vbox VM (amd64 version). What I have not done is 
tried all the various partitioning schemes available under "Manual" config. 
Possibly one, such as Dos MBR or BSD disklabel which I have not tried, may 
be broken boot-loading wise. I only went straight down the GPT road.

-Mike