Le 03/10/2016 11:38, Rick Moen a écrit :
> Quoting Didier Kryn (kryn@???):
>
>> Long ago I would use Ext2 as the root partition, when Grub-0.9
>> didn't know of Reiserfs.
> Thank you very much for clarifying about the raidtools >0.9 metadata
> issue, by the way. I really hadn't seen and understood that.
>
> Anyway, as you and Simon Hobson suggest, I was long in the habit of
> having separate /boot (in those days, because of the 1024-cylinder
> limit), and certainly might do so again. Back then, I had that as ext2,
> and with the filesystem normally unmounted.
>
>> Of course this scheme is certainly also usable with LILO, but
>> then why not use Grub-legacy?
> Well, some of us just actually preferred lilo. I honestly never saw the
> advantage of grub 0.9x. 'It can parse a large list of filesystems.'
> Er, how about using a bootloader that doesn't _need_ to parse the
> filesystems because it notes down disk locations? 'It has a shell.'
> Er, how about using a bootloader where you don't _need_ a shell because
> you include a safety fallback boot configuration you can always invoke
> to enter the system and recover from errors?
>
> It's fine that people love grub 0.9x, of course, but many of us just
> never found its alleged advantages even to be advantages, let alone
> compelling. (Of course, there are things lilo cannot address, and never
> will, starting with f*cking UEFI. ;-> )
>
For non-standard things I would use SYSLINUX, but for laptops and
servers I don't want to spend time on hacking the bootloader config when
the distro is able to automatically install and configure a default
bootloader which just works, which has been the case of Grub2 for years.
Only if it was showing glitches would I consider something else.
But I understand perfectly others can make different choices, and I
support the idea of keeping multiple options available.
Didier
::
Re: [DNG] What does Devuan expect f…
