grub and alpha tar

Tushar T tush at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 10 21:06:29 PDT 2002


Paul Roberts wrote:

>While grub is technically more flashy, it's got some cons to it that I
>don't much care for and can only see as _causing_ more problems than they
>would solve...
>
>  - No official support for graphical boot screens (this will become
>   somewhat more important over the weekend).
>
I don't know whether that is of any particular relevance. I rarely see 
the boot prompt! And the default text mode is decent enough. For others, 
there is a patch available.

>  - It's nowhere _nearly_ as straightforward as LILO to configure.  This
>   is almost sure to generate lots of lovely new FAQ questions.
>
The documentation on the official site is decent enough and once you get 
the hang of it, it is not very problematic.

>  - It's still technically beta software, and (pardon the pun) to boot
>   not as time-tested as LILO.  It would be a fairly bad precedent to set
>   to tell people to use "some" beta-release software on production(*)
>   equipment unless there is some specific security or stability issue
>   that is solved by using it.
>
Lot of people on the list and many distros have been using it for quite 
some time now.

>The arguments that are in favor of Grub seem pretty minor to me... The
>docs for it make a big deal of being able to not having to specify the
>amount of memory in a system manually, but let's face it... machines
>afflicted with problems seeing beyond 128Mb of RAM are quite rare, and
>I've not seen the problem occur with anything of recent manufacture.
>
One of the major arguments that is gaining favor on this list is that 
lilo requires nasm and dev86, grub does not. And there is no point in 
adding packages just for a bootloader that is used once in a blue moon.

>...and yes, great, you can pick your own kernel at boot time without
>having to add a menu entry for it.  How many people actually need (or
>would even _use_) that feature?  Most people would _not_ be using
>it--it's likely the vast majority would never need it.
>
the point of interest is not the fact that any kernel can be picked at 
boot time, the point of interest is that if there was an error in 
creating the config file, that can be corrected while booting. How many 
times have people forgotten to run lilo after installing a new kernel?

Anyways like Gerard says, your distro, your rules:)

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
LFS ID: 1377
http://tushar.lfsforum.org/

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list