GRUB/LILO: I am beating a dead horse?

James Iwanek chthon at
Thu May 1 12:57:48 PDT 2003

Ian Molton wrote:

> On Thu, 1 May 2003 16:30:23 +0000 (UTC)
> gerard at (Gerard Beekmans) wrote:
>> On May 1, 2003 09:24 am, Al T. wrote:
>> > there any decision in the end about it?  Or will GRUB simply become
>> > the new boot loader?
>> For now Grub will simply replace LILO, just to get started. Time will
>> tell if there is enough demand for having LILO as well, although it
>> could very well be written in an LFS-Hint as an alternative (like we
>> do with editors right now).
> Oh please, NOT AGAIN!
> 1) Why replace LILO when it simply needs moving and having a grub
> section added. removing it just to add it again later seems rather a
> waste of effort...

because lilo needs an extra package added to the book whereas if we switch
to grub we can actually take one package out of the book

> 2) You know perfectly well that the Grub / LILO userbases (that care to
> speak up) are matched about 50:50 at last time this came up, so its your
> own personal choice if grub replaces lilo - dont pretend its a
> democratic thing. (not that I mind - its your project, and the userbase
> is split 50:50. but dont pretend its because GRUB is better or has a
> majority because it doesnt. Either both or neither bootloader should be
> relegated to hints. no one one way and one the other.

in a perfect world this is completely true but because of the reasons stated
above (and probably numerous other ones) it wont happen. besides even if it
did we would end up with numerous "my computer dosnt boot" support requests
because the cut-n-paste crowd wouldnt think to actually read the hints

> Just my 2p (again)

and now mine ;-)

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list