FB 9.1 boot loader problem in VirtualBox

[Warren Block]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Michael Powell wrote:

> 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.

MBR works also.  Which is to be expected, it's an emulated machine, and 
isn't any more picky about boot blocks than physical hardware.  Probably 
less picky, really.