> > In a running system, it's the base of the mounted filesystem. > > In a partition, it's the base of the partition. For the root filesystem, > and only for the root filesystem, they're the same. > > grub, the boot loader, does not deal in mounted filesystems, it only > looks at a single filesystem, typically but not necessarily, in a partition. > > How about you print this before commenting further? > http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.ps.gz > > One of the better things about GNU's documentation is that the same > files that create the info files can also create postscript and PDF files. > > > Cheers > John > The beauty of a debate. Makes people think. I did some digging and found the following: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/ref-guide/s1-grub-terminology.html Where you will find a section called "GRUB's Root File System" which says: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some users are confused by the use of the term "root file system" with GRUB. It is important to remember that GRUB's root file system has nothing to do with the Linux root file system. The GRUB root file system is the root partition for a particular device. GRUB uses this information to mount the device and load files from it. With Red Hat Linux, once GRUB has loaded its root partition (which equates to the /boot partition and contains the Linux kernel), the kernel command can be executed with the location of the kernel file as an option. Once the Linux kernel boots, it sets the root file system Linux users are familiar with. The original GRUB root file system and its mounts are forgotten; they only existed to boot the kernel filI Refer to the root and kernel commands in Section 2.6 GRUB Commands for more information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on that I have to conclude that what Karl stated isn't necessarily incorrect (my apologies). It did lack some clarification differentiating between grub's root file system vs the OS root file system. However Karl was not correct through knowledge of this, but rather by accident. He was of the opinion that anything that was on its own partition had a root and could be properly referred to using that term. Ultimately it goes back to refraining from posting authoritative instructions unless one is an authority on the subject. Of course the same could be argued for those of us posting a rebuttal. In this case Karl's understanding of how to use the term root was erroneous. Others were using it properly however were unaware of grub's own use of the term (myself included). Jacques B.
