On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:49:52 -0600, Dale wrote:
What can change? We are stuck with a hardware spec from 30 years ago
for booting. That won't change any time soon.
File systems for one. They do make new ones every once in a while. '
That's the one area ion which GRUB may need an
On 2011-01-13 10:41, Neil Bothwick wrote:
No. Hard disks are hard disks, BIOSes are BIOSes. If that changed, the
World would fall apart. That's why you can get a kernel panic if you
forgot to build your SATA controller's drivers into the kernel, but GRUB
quite happily loaded the same kernel
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:00:45 +0100, pk wrote:
If I remember correctly, grub (legacy) is not compatible with EFI or
GPT...
That's right, so GRUB's current lifespan will end when we use those
methods exclusively. This won't happen soon.
I'd be more than happy for GRUB1 to become obsolete if it
On 13 January 2011 13:12, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:00:45 +0100, pk wrote:
If I remember correctly, grub (legacy) is not compatible with EFI or
GPT...
That's right, so GRUB's current lifespan will end when we use those
methods exclusively. This won't
On 2011-01-13 14:12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
That's right, so GRUB's current lifespan will end when we use those
methods exclusively. This won't happen soon.
Intel is pushing (U)EFI...
http://www.taranfx.com/bios-death-uefi
http://www.hardcoreware.net/msi-using-uefi-sandy-bridge/
Best regards
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:00 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2011-01-13 10:41, Neil Bothwick wrote:
No. Hard disks are hard disks, BIOSes are BIOSes. If that changed, the
World would fall apart. That's why you can get a kernel panic if you
forgot to build your SATA controller's drivers
On 11/1/2011, at 10:08pm, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:51:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
Well, I have to say that for the moment, the old grub is working fine
here. Just like ntp, that may change next week. I just wonder how
much longer it will take before they get it stabilized
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:33:02 +, Stroller wrote:
No longer updated can mean broken, but it can also mean finished.
Boot to BTFS filesystems?
Finished != complete
--
Neil Bothwick
Bug: (n.) any program feature not yet described to the marketing
department.
signature.asc
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:46:43 -0600, Dale wrote:
What is there to do with it? It's a bootloader that boots and loads,
what more do you want?
No longer updated can mean broken, but it can also mean finished.
My point was, if something changes and it no longer
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:51:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
Well, I have to say that for the moment, the old grub is working fine
here. Just like ntp, that may change next week. I just wonder how
much longer it will take before they get it stabilized and expect
everyone to switch to it? From my
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:51:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
Well, I have to say that for the moment, the old grub is working fine
here. Just like ntp, that may change next week. I just wonder how
much longer it will take before they get it stabilized and expect
everyone to
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:46 on Wednesday 12 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:51:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
Well, I have to say that for the moment, the old grub is working fine
here. Just like ntp, that may change next week. I just
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
I want to wait until either the old grub doesn't work for me or the new grub
is known to be stable and has got all the kinks worked out. Even then, I
may wait until I have a issue or the old grub leaves the tree. I seem to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:46:43 -0600, Dale wrote:
What is there to do with it? It's a bootloader that boots and loads,
what more do you want?
No longer updated can mean broken, but it can also mean finished.
My point was, if something changes and it no longer works, then we may
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:36 on Sunday 09 January 2011, walt did
opine thusly:
About three years ago I spent a lot of time on the grub2 mailing list,
building grub2 from their svn repo, even submitting a patch or two to
get it working for the *BSD family.
Then I got old and tired
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:44 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
I have not tried grub2 yet but I did fine these:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Grub2
That has a lot of info on the grub2 conf file. It is called grub.cfg if
I read that correctly. There is a
Alan McKinnon wrote:
I don't quite agree with Volker's viewpoint but don't totally disagree with
him either. grub2 has a whole whack of bloat all of it's own. Here's what
Ubuntu has on 10.10:
$ ls -al /boot/
total 17656
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2011-01-08 21:37 .
drwxr-xr-x 22 root root
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:48 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
It seems grub2 is a whopper. Check this out:
r...@fireball / # du -shc boot
13M boot
13M total
r...@fireball / # ls -al /boot/bzImage-2.6.36-r*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4201472 Dec 15 00:16
On Sunday 09 January 2011 22:04:44 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:48 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
It seems grub2 is a whopper. Check this out:
r...@fireball / # du -shc boot
13M boot
13M total
r...@fireball / # ls -al
Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's trying to be an OS that's a bootloader as it's primary function.
Think back to the days of lilo. It obviously isn't an OS and doesn't
understand OS concepts - it loads an OS. When that step is done, then and only
then do OS concepts come into play. lilo doesn't even
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's trying to be an OS that's a bootloader as it's primary function.
Think back to the days of lilo. It obviously isn't an OS and doesn't
understand OS concepts - it loads an
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's trying to be an OS that's a bootloader as it's primary function.
Think back to the days of lilo. It obviously isn't an OS and doesn't
understand OS
On Sunday 09 January 2011 21:42:22 Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Sunday 09 January 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's trying to be an OS that's a bootloader as it's primary function.
Think back to the days of lilo. It
About three years ago I spent a lot of time on the grub2 mailing list,
building grub2 from their svn repo, even submitting a patch or two to
get it working for the *BSD family.
Then I got old and tired and I settled on gentoo. I deleted all the
other OS's from my machines, including
On Saturday 08 January 2011 15:36:49 walt wrote:
About three years ago I spent a lot of time on the grub2 mailing list,
building grub2 from their svn repo, even submitting a patch or two to
get it working for the *BSD family.
Then I got old and tired and I settled on gentoo. I deleted all
walt wrote:
About three years ago I spent a lot of time on the grub2 mailing list,
building grub2 from their svn repo, even submitting a patch or two to
get it working for the *BSD family.
Then I got old and tired and I settled on gentoo. I deleted all the
other OS's from my machines,
=== On Sat, 01/08, walt wrote: ===
grub2 is enough different from legacy grub to make the learning curve
very steep
===
I did get into grub2 recently, myself. It's hard to imagine anything
worse... It's supposed to be just a f* bootloader, not an OS. It
needs a complete OS install just to
27 matches
Mail list logo
