On 5 March 2015 at 16:04, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard Melville wrote: > > Far more development appears to go into Syslinux than Grub2. There were >> five different versions of Syslinux released in 2013 and one at the end of >> last year. I find Syslinux much easier to build, configure and use. It's >> small, light, and fast. Surely, all we require of a bootloader is to boot >> the system. Again, as you say: "simpler is better". >> > > grub can be complicated, but we actually make it fairly easy. The build > is CMMI with a few extra configure switches. The configuration file is > about 10 lines long. It's the commercial distros that make it complicated.
I can accept that Grub2 should be learned for practical reasons; after all, it is the de facto bootloader for distros. And LFS is an excellent learning environment. Furthermore, AFAIK, only Grub can boot a complete range of file systems, whereas Syslinux is limited to the Ext family (including Btrfs). And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Grub can handle full-disk encryption, whereas Syslinux can't. However, if all you want to do is boot your shiny new LFS with the minimum of hassle, then Syslinux is hard to beat. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
