On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 05:41:11PM +0000, Firerat wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
[ snipped - people, PLEASE trim what you are replying to ] > > lilo is plain and simple to use > but at least for me there is no contest , grub wins hands down As a long-time user of lilo, I have to agree that grub2 is better. All bootloaders are nasty, and I used to find lilo's simplicity suited me. On my (x86_64) desktops I moved once grub2 came into the book, and after a learning curve it now runs reliably for me. My server used to have an old install and I was stuck on a very old kernel because of lilo (the root disk moved to sd? from hda when the kernel went to the new ATA code [ might have been sda, or might have been sdc, I forget ] and lilo refused to write the fixed-up entry because in the old kernel the sd drive didn't exist. Going to grub2 was somewhat painful. Needed a rescue CD a few times for when it failed to boot. On the desktops I had to make a symlink to sort out my separate /boot partition. On the server I also had to search long and hard to get a 1024x768 framebuffer after I moved to a new motherboard - changed to vesafb from radeonfb and had to add things to grub: setgfxmode=1024x768 setgfxpaylod=keep # hmm, that looks like a typo insmod gfxterm insmod vbe Note that both my desktops are happily using radeonfb and kms without having to fiddle with grub.cfg, but these sort of "works there, but not here" issues are common in bootloaders. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
