On May 9, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I haven't piped in on this at all, but I'd just like to say that I really, really want to be pro-grub2. I periodically peruse the grub-devel archives hoping to see that a 2.0 release is imminent. I find it ridiculous that there's no currently supported grub. But, anyway, I'm still x86 all the time, so grub-0.9.7 is good enough for me. I'll be curious how this plays out, though.
It gets a little annoying on pure-64 systems, as you can't build it. Or at least I can't, and Gentoo seems to have given up too. If you enable kernel support for 32-bit binaries you can still run it, but you must build it someplace else. However even with that annoyance it is still my preference on x86 systems -- I feel the flexibility it offers to let me change my (often mistyped) boot options and paths if worth the hassle, and I have not been impressed by the flexibility of alternatives. I can appreciate the robustness of solutions that do not support file-system access, but I'm willing to give that up for the ability to never need a rescue disk just to fix a typo in my kernel path, or the ability to load a kernel off a CD and then boot from a runtime-selected root partition (you don't want to know why that's useful to me).
But as others have mentioned, I think Grub2 development only an SMTP client away from being done. As much as I'd like it to get there, I'm not sure it will be what I want when it does.
Zach
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
