On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:49:56 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> Subject line says it pretty well. ??Is grub2 stable, who uses it and can
>>>> you post your experience on the switching process? ??Was it difficult?
>>>
>>> I use it on my netbook, which I admittedly don't boot more than a couple
>>> of times a month. It's stable, I can't comment on the switching process
>>> as I used GRUB2 from the start with this machine, it seemed a good time
>>> to get to grips with it.
>>>
>>> GRUB2 is neither complicated nor difficult, but it is different.
>>
>> I've only used it on Ubuntu, and maybe it's just Ubuntu's
>> implementation -- but it was both complicated and difficult. ??There
>> are 10X as many files, and to change anything you edit a whole set of
>> configuration files and run a utility that generates _another_ set of
>> configuration files.
>>
>> Compared to "vi /boot/grub/menu.lst; reboot", that's complicated.
>>
>>> If you try to think in terms of legacy GRUB, you will have more
>>> problems than if you approach is as learning a new system.
>>
>> At first glace, grub2 looks like a minature Unix installation whose
>> purpose is to boot a bigger Unix installation. ??It's got it's own init
>> system and it's own set of init scripts.
>
> That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have
> (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart),
I'm curious: what if you don't have one? I use grub-legacy to boot
stuff other than Unix.
> and it has scripts to *generate* the config file.
>
> The thing is that GRUB2 needs to understand several filesystems to
> grab the kernel image from.
I understand why GRUB2 is complicated. It's the statement that it's
not complicated that I was disagreeing with.
> It also wants to be able to use a more interesting resolution than
> 640x480.
That I don't understand. It's a bootloader. It needs to allow you to
pick one of a handfull of choices and boot that choice.
> This means that it has to reimplement all the code for any
> filesystem,
That part I understand.
> and all the code for video handling.
I don't really understand the need for that, but I'm somebody who
still regularly uses a serial console. [Insert the usual "I remember
when" grumbling here.]
[...]
> However, in the last LPC, it was suggested that replicating filesystem
> and video code on the kernel and grub was a terrible idea, and some
> developers have suggested to use a /firstboot partition with a simple
> filesystem, and populated with a kernel image and an initramfs. That
> will mean that to boot Linux, we would use Linux.
Yea, I've read about that. The mind wobbles. I suppose it's no worse
than VAXes having a PDP-11 inside to help it start up. [I'm not
really sure that's true, but I heard it from several people who should
have known.]
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! A dwarf is passing out
at somewhere in Detroit!
gmail.com
