Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:48:08 -0500 Harry Putnam wrote: > Neil Bothwick writes: > > >> Also, its not clear how one would install a new kernel. Where to > >> put the information and so forth. > > > > See above. You don't put anything anywhere when installing a new > > kernel, just run grub-update and it will be found and added to the > > menu. At the same time, any old kernels you have deleted will be > > removed. > > Well now, that is an improvement. But surely the kernel needs to be > put on /boot? That's not a function of grub-install, it's a function of make install -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Neil Bothwick writes: >> Also, its not clear how one would install a new kernel. Where to put >> the information and so forth. > > See above. You don't put anything anywhere when installing a new kernel, > just run grub-update and it will be found and added to the menu. At the > same time, any old kernels you have deleted will be removed. Well now, that is an improvement. But surely the kernel needs to be put on /boot?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:51:04 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: > /boot/grub/grub.cfg itself is 111 lines. Its not the most complex > script going but for me it would take some serious study for an hour > or more to figure out what is happening in it. But of course you are > not supposed to edit grub.cfg directly. But you can if you wish. > > It is orders of magnitude more complicated in my opinion... I'm not > sure what the advantages are supposed to be. Better automation. > Also, its not clear how one would install a new kernel. Where to put > the information and so forth. See above. You don't put anything anywhere when installing a new kernel, just run grub-update and it will be found and added to the menu. At the same time, any old kernels you have deleted will be removed. -- Neil Bothwick System halted - hit any Microsoft employee to continue. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Ugh Guess if Gentoo ever removes Grub1 I'll have to switch to Lilo or something else - I loathe complicated, especially when there is no good reason... On 2011-10-06 8:51 AM, Harry Putnam wrote: Grant Edwards writes: 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. 100 % agreement here. I'm running Debian which has moved over to grub2 in the newest (wheezy) install media. Here is just a factual count of files to bare out the point. sudo mount /boot find /boot -type f|wc -l 225 225 files in boot. And that isn't all that are involved, there are others elsewhere on the file system. Just for grub users info a real list is inlined at the end. In truth, I've only had to make one small edit (It was very esoteric and hard to find info about). I wanted to boot to console which required me to change one line in a file. /etc/default/grub (original line) GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet splash" (edited line) GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet text" It caused some kind of grief and came up as error on boot messages but still worked. To avoid unforeseen problems I put it back to original state and just took `gdm' out of play (named gdm3 on debian). I then `startx' into fluxbox. However to edit the boot process you make changes to certain files like the one above and then run `update-grub' which generates the files in /boot or at least some of them. /boot/grub/grub.cfg itself is 111 lines. Its not the most complex script going but for me it would take some serious study for an hour or more to figure out what is happening in it. But of course you are not supposed to edit grub.cfg directly. It is orders of magnitude more complicated in my opinion... I'm not sure what the advantages are supposed to be. Also, its not clear how one would install a new kernel. Where to put the information and so forth. ---- ---=--- - find /boot -type f /boot/System.map-3.0.0-1-686-pae /boot/config-3.0.0-1-686-pae /boot/grub/device.map /boot/grub/915resolution.mod /boot/grub/acpi.mod /boot/grub/affs.mod /boot/grub/afs.mod /boot/grub/afs_be.mod /boot/grub/aout.mod /boot/grub/at_keyboard.mod /boot/grub/ata.mod /boot/grub/ata_pthru.mod /boot/grub/befs.mod /boot/grub/befs_be.mod /boot/grub/biosdisk.mod /boot/grub/bitmap.mod /boot/grub/bitmap_scale.mod /boot/grub/blocklist.mod /boot/grub/boot.mod /boot/grub/bsd.mod /boot/grub/btrfs.mod /boot/grub/bufio.mod /boot/grub/cat.mod /boot/grub/chain.mod /boot/grub/cmostest.mod /boot/grub/cmp.mod /boot/grub/configfile.mod /boot/grub/cpio.mod /boot/grub/cpuid.mod /boot/grub/crypto.mod /boot/grub/cs5536.mod /boot/grub/date.mod /boot/grub/datehook.mod /boot/grub/datetime.mod /boot/grub/dm_nv.mod /boot/grub/drivemap.mod /boot/grub/echo.mod /boot/grub/efiemu.mod /boot/grub/elf.mod /boot/grub/example_functional_test.mod /boot/grub/ext2.mod /boot/grub/extcmd.mod /boot/grub/fat.mod /boot/grub/font.mod /boot/grub/fshelp.mod /boot/grub/functional_test.mod /boot/grub/gcry_arcfour.mod /boot/grub/gcry_blowfish.mod /boot/grub/gcry_camellia.mod /boot/grub/gcry_cast5.mod /boot/grub/gcry_crc.mod /boot/grub/gcry_des.mod /boot/grub/gcry_md4.mod /boot/grub/gcry_md5.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rfc2268.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rijndael.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rmd160.mod /boot/grub/gcry_seed.mod /boot/grub/gcry_serpent.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha1.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha256.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha512.mod /boot/grub/gcry_tiger.mod /boot/grub/gcry_twofish.mod /boot/grub/gcry_whirlpool.mod /boot/grub/gettext.mod /boot/grub/gfxmenu.mod /boot/grub/gfxterm.mod /boot/grub/gptsync.mod /boot/grub/gzio.mod /boot/grub/halt.mod /boot/grub/hashsum.mod /boot/grub/hdparm.mod /boot/grub/hello.mod /boot/grub/help.mod /boot/grub/hexdump.mod /boot/grub/hfs.mod /boot/grub/hfsplus.mod /boot/grub/iorw.mod /boot/grub/iso9660.mod /boot/grub/jfs.mod /boot/grub/jpeg.mod /boot/grub/keylayouts.mod /boot/grub/keystatus.mod /boot/grub/legacycfg.mod /boot/grub/linux.mod /boot/grub/linux16.mod /boot/grub/loadenv.mod /boot/grub/loopback.mod /boot/grub/ls.mod /boot/grub/lsacpi.mod /boot/grub/lsapm.mod /boot/grub/lsmmap.mod /boot/grub/lspci.mod /boot/grub/lvm.mod /boot/grub/mdraid09.mod /boot/grub/mdraid1x.mod /boot/grub/memdisk.mod /boot/grub/memrw.mod /boot/grub/minicmd.mod /boot/grub/mmap.mod /boot/grub/minix.mod /boot/grub/minix2.mod /boot/grub/msdospart.mod /boot/grub/multiboot.mod /boot/grub/multiboot2.mod /boot/grub/nilfs2.mod /boot/grub/normal.mod /boot/grub/ntfs.mod /boot/grub/ntfscomp.mod /boot/grub/ntldr.mod /boot/grub/ohci.mod /boot/grub/part_acorn.mod /boot/grub/part_amiga.mod /boot/grub/part_apple.mod /boot/grub/part_bsd.mod /boot/grub/part_gpt.mod /boot/
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Grant Edwards writes: > 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. 100 % agreement here. I'm running Debian which has moved over to grub2 in the newest (wheezy) install media. Here is just a factual count of files to bare out the point. sudo mount /boot find /boot -type f|wc -l 225 225 files in boot. And that isn't all that are involved, there are others elsewhere on the file system. Just for grub users info a real list is inlined at the end. In truth, I've only had to make one small edit (It was very esoteric and hard to find info about). I wanted to boot to console which required me to change one line in a file. /etc/default/grub (original line) GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet splash" (edited line) GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet text" It caused some kind of grief and came up as error on boot messages but still worked. To avoid unforeseen problems I put it back to original state and just took `gdm' out of play (named gdm3 on debian). I then `startx' into fluxbox. However to edit the boot process you make changes to certain files like the one above and then run `update-grub' which generates the files in /boot or at least some of them. /boot/grub/grub.cfg itself is 111 lines. Its not the most complex script going but for me it would take some serious study for an hour or more to figure out what is happening in it. But of course you are not supposed to edit grub.cfg directly. It is orders of magnitude more complicated in my opinion... I'm not sure what the advantages are supposed to be. Also, its not clear how one would install a new kernel. Where to put the information and so forth. ---- ---=--- - find /boot -type f /boot/System.map-3.0.0-1-686-pae /boot/config-3.0.0-1-686-pae /boot/grub/device.map /boot/grub/915resolution.mod /boot/grub/acpi.mod /boot/grub/affs.mod /boot/grub/afs.mod /boot/grub/afs_be.mod /boot/grub/aout.mod /boot/grub/at_keyboard.mod /boot/grub/ata.mod /boot/grub/ata_pthru.mod /boot/grub/befs.mod /boot/grub/befs_be.mod /boot/grub/biosdisk.mod /boot/grub/bitmap.mod /boot/grub/bitmap_scale.mod /boot/grub/blocklist.mod /boot/grub/boot.mod /boot/grub/bsd.mod /boot/grub/btrfs.mod /boot/grub/bufio.mod /boot/grub/cat.mod /boot/grub/chain.mod /boot/grub/cmostest.mod /boot/grub/cmp.mod /boot/grub/configfile.mod /boot/grub/cpio.mod /boot/grub/cpuid.mod /boot/grub/crypto.mod /boot/grub/cs5536.mod /boot/grub/date.mod /boot/grub/datehook.mod /boot/grub/datetime.mod /boot/grub/dm_nv.mod /boot/grub/drivemap.mod /boot/grub/echo.mod /boot/grub/efiemu.mod /boot/grub/elf.mod /boot/grub/example_functional_test.mod /boot/grub/ext2.mod /boot/grub/extcmd.mod /boot/grub/fat.mod /boot/grub/font.mod /boot/grub/fshelp.mod /boot/grub/functional_test.mod /boot/grub/gcry_arcfour.mod /boot/grub/gcry_blowfish.mod /boot/grub/gcry_camellia.mod /boot/grub/gcry_cast5.mod /boot/grub/gcry_crc.mod /boot/grub/gcry_des.mod /boot/grub/gcry_md4.mod /boot/grub/gcry_md5.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rfc2268.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rijndael.mod /boot/grub/gcry_rmd160.mod /boot/grub/gcry_seed.mod /boot/grub/gcry_serpent.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha1.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha256.mod /boot/grub/gcry_sha512.mod /boot/grub/gcry_tiger.mod /boot/grub/gcry_twofish.mod /boot/grub/gcry_whirlpool.mod /boot/grub/gettext.mod /boot/grub/gfxmenu.mod /boot/grub/gfxterm.mod /boot/grub/gptsync.mod /boot/grub/gzio.mod /boot/grub/halt.mod /boot/grub/hashsum.mod /boot/grub/hdparm.mod /boot/grub/hello.mod /boot/grub/help.mod /boot/grub/hexdump.mod /boot/grub/hfs.mod /boot/grub/hfsplus.mod /boot/grub/iorw.mod /boot/grub/iso9660.mod /boot/grub/jfs.mod /boot/grub/jpeg.mod /boot/grub/keylayouts.mod /boot/grub/keystatus.mod /boot/grub/legacycfg.mod /boot/grub/linux.mod /boot/grub/linux16.mod /boot/grub/loadenv.mod /boot/grub/loopback.mod /boot/grub/ls.mod /boot/grub/lsacpi.mod /boot/grub/lsapm.mod /boot/grub/lsmmap.mod /boot/grub/lspci.mod /boot/grub/lvm.mod /boot/grub/mdraid09.mod /boot/grub/mdraid1x.mod /boot/grub/memdisk.mod /boot/grub/memrw.mod /boot/grub/minicmd.mod /boot/grub/mmap.mod /boot/grub/minix.mod /boot/grub/minix2.mod /boot/grub/msdospart.mod /boot/grub/multiboot.mod /boot/grub/multiboot2.mod /boot/grub/nilfs2.mod /boot/grub/normal.mod /boot/grub/ntfs.mod /boot/grub/ntfscomp.mod /boot/grub/ntldr.mod /boot/grub/ohci.mod /boot/grub/part_acorn.mod /boot/grub/part_amiga.mod /boot/grub/part_apple.mod /boot/grub/part_bsd.mod /boot/grub/part_gpt.mod /boot/grub/part_msdos.mod /boot/grub/part_sun.mod /boot/grub/part_sunpc.mod /boot/grub/parttool.mod /boot/grub/password.mod /boot/grub/password_pbkdf2.mod /boot/grub/pbkdf2.mod /boot/grub/pci.mod /boot/grub
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:10:45 -0700 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Grant Edwards > wrote: > > On 2011-10-05, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > > > >>> And the set of init scripts that belong to grub2 are just to try > >>> to auto-magically generate the config file? > >> > >> With options from /etc/default/grub, yes. But please stop calling > >> the files in /etc/grub.d "init scripts". > > > > I'm not calling those "init scripts". I'm referring to > > > > /etc/init.d/grub-common > > I don't have that file, and it's not because Gentoo removes it: it was > probably added by the Ubuntu developers. True: ! /bin/sh ### BEGIN INIT INFO # Provides: grub-common # Required-Start:$all # Required-Stop: # Default-Start: 2 3 4 5 # Default-Stop: # Short-Description: Record successful boot for GRUB # Description: GRUB displays the boot menu at the next boot if it #believes that the previous boot failed. This script #informs it that the system booted successfully. ### END INIT INFO -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-05, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >>> And the set of init scripts that belong to grub2 are just to try to >>> auto-magically generate the config file? >> >> With options from /etc/default/grub, yes. But please stop calling the >> files in /etc/grub.d "init scripts". > > I'm not calling those "init scripts". I'm referring to > > /etc/init.d/grub-common I don't have that file, and it's not because Gentoo removes it: it was probably added by the Ubuntu developers. > That's an executable /bin/sh shell script. Don't know what that is > called if not an "init script". But it's not part of GRUB2. If you had checked the project sources, or the Gentoo ebuild, you would have realized that it is not a file from the project. > And then there are these (also /bin/sh scripts): > > /etc/grub.d/00_header > /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme > /etc/grub.d/10_linux > /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ > /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober > /etc/grub.d/40_custom > > I assumed these were also some sort of init scripts, but I don't > really know when they get executed. That's the problem: you didn't know how the thing worked, and jumped to conclusions. >> That's the whole reason I dragged the init systems into the >> discussion: you said that GRUB2 "got it's own initsystem and it's own >> set of init scripts." > > You forgot the part where I said "at first glance under Ubuntu, it > appears that" or somesuch. You said that, but your next sentence was "It's got it's own init system and it's own set of init scripts", unequivocally. >> And it's simply not true. Maybe with the best of intentions, but >> that's disinformation. > > To me, /etc/init.d/grub-common is an init script. Maybe in Ubunt (and maybe not: distros this days throw every kind of scripts in /etc/init.d, and Gentoo does this too, BTW), but again you only took a quick look at how it's set in another distro, and jumped to say that the project as a whole (and not the config from a particular distro) "got it's own init system and it's own set of init scripts". To me, that's the definition of spreading disinformation: not looking for all the info, and stating that such and such is or is not when it's simply not true. It's the same history as the myth that /var will not longer be able to be on its own partition: it keeps popping up in many threads, and it's also simply not true. Again, I don't think you did it on purpose with the intention of smear GRUB2 (that was my "with the best of intentions" part), but *it is* disinformation. To finish: GRUB2 does not need or have init scripts, it doesn't have it's own init system, and if your setup works with GRUB, it will work in GRUB2, but you will probably need to learn a new way to configure it. The other way around is not true: GRUB will not support all the setups that GRUB2 will, unless someone steps up and writes the code for it. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-05, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> And the set of init scripts that belong to grub2 are just to try to >> auto-magically generate the config file? > > With options from /etc/default/grub, yes. But please stop calling the > files in /etc/grub.d "init scripts". I'm not calling those "init scripts". I'm referring to /etc/init.d/grub-common That's an executable /bin/sh shell script. Don't know what that is called if not an "init script". And then there are these (also /bin/sh scripts): /etc/grub.d/00_header /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme /etc/grub.d/10_linux /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober /etc/grub.d/40_custom I assumed these were also some sort of init scripts, but I don't really know when they get executed. > That's the whole reason I dragged the init systems into the > discussion: you said that GRUB2 "got it's own initsystem and it's own > set of init scripts." You forgot the part where I said "at first glance under Ubuntu, it appears that" or somesuch. > And it's simply not true. Maybe with the best of intentions, but > that's disinformation. To me, /etc/init.d/grub-common is an init script. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Excuse me, but didn't at I tell you there's NO HOPE gmail.comfor the survival of OFFSET PRINTING?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-05, Pandu Poluan wrote: > >>> I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's >>> init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. >> >> I think what he meant was: > > I assume you mean PID#1 (typically /sbin/init). On Unixes with PID#0, > it's usually the swapper or scheduler task that's internal to the > kernel. > >> The *installer* portion of grub2 is aware of which pid#0 is running >> when it auto-creates the bootloader's configuration. That pid#0 is >> passed on to the kernel by the bootloader. > > OK. I that I understand. It seems a bit redundant to me: I've been > running Linux since the 0.99 days and never had to pass init= to a > kernel. But, I guess it won't hurt anything... > >> The *bootloader* portion of grub2 don't know and don't care what is >> being used as pid#0 by the OS. All it knows is that the installer >> portion has specified something to be passed to the OS. And that's >> what it does, without understanding anything about pid#0. > > And the set of init scripts that belong to grub2 are just to try to > auto-magically generate the config file? With options from /etc/default/grub, yes. But please stop calling the files in /etc/grub.d "init scripts". That's the whole reason I dragged the init systems into the discussion: you said that GRUB2 "got it's own initsystem and it's own set of init scripts." And it's simply not true. Maybe with the best of intentions, but that's disinformation. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Grant Edwards >> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. >> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, >> OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > > I know. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or > connects to) the init system. > >> That's the init= command line in the kernel. >> >> The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) >> that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, >> any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being >> able to understand the filesystem etc.) > > I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. ??What I don't > understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted > OS's init system. Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. >>> >>> So to use grub2 you have to replace the normal "init" program that's >>> started by the kernle as PID#1 with something else? >> >> No. > > I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's > init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. Others explain it too. The GRUB2 bootloader has nothing to do with the init system, except for passing thi init= command line, and it is not required that it does. The GRUB2 userspace, used to generate the config file, can be made aware of what init system is to be used, making the bootloader to pass the init= command line to the kernel. That is all. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:46:03 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: >> The *installer* portion of grub2 is aware of which pid#0 is running > > when it auto-creates the bootloader's configuration. That pid#0 is > > passed on to the kernel by the bootloader. > > OK. I that I understand. It seems a bit redundant to me: I've been > running Linux since the 0.99 days and never had to pass init= to a > kernel. But, I guess it won't hurt anything... That's because you are using the standard, hard-coded, init. GRUB2 is trying to cope with all use cases, so it checks to see whether a different system is in use and configures the boot menu accordingly. -- Neil Bothwick GOTO: (n.) an efficient and general way of controlling a program, much despised by academics and others whose brains have been ruined by overexposure to Pascal. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:46:03 + (UTC) Grant Edwards wrote: > > The *installer* portion of grub2 is aware of which pid#0 is running > > when it auto-creates the bootloader's configuration. That pid#0 is > > passed on to the kernel by the bootloader. > > OK. I that I understand. It seems a bit redundant to me: I've been > running Linux since the 0.99 days and never had to pass init= to a > kernel. But, I guess it won't hurt anything. It is indeed redundant and harmless. You no doubt already know the kernel's logic for launching the first userspace app - three paths are hardcoded and searched in sequence, first one found is launched. The third one is /sbin/init It makes for a wonderful prank, add "init=bin/bash" to someone's menu.lst and watch them get confused at next reboot :-) I suppose grub2 could search for and include a redundant init parameter for the sake of consistency with cases where a non-standard init was in use -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-05, Pandu Poluan wrote: >> I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's >> init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. > > I think what he meant was: I assume you mean PID#1 (typically /sbin/init). On Unixes with PID#0, it's usually the swapper or scheduler task that's internal to the kernel. > The *installer* portion of grub2 is aware of which pid#0 is running > when it auto-creates the bootloader's configuration. That pid#0 is > passed on to the kernel by the bootloader. OK. I that I understand. It seems a bit redundant to me: I've been running Linux since the 0.99 days and never had to pass init= to a kernel. But, I guess it won't hurt anything... > The *bootloader* portion of grub2 don't know and don't care what is > being used as pid#0 by the OS. All it knows is that the installer > portion has specified something to be passed to the OS. And that's > what it does, without understanding anything about pid#0. And the set of init scripts that belong to grub2 are just to try to auto-magically generate the config file? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! They collapsed at ... like nuns in the gmail.comstreet ... they had no teen appeal!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Am 05.10.2011 15:55, schrieb Grant Edwards: > I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's > init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. It has NOTHING to do with it, or not more or less then lilo or grub1 or any other bootloader. But the automagic of grub2 at install/setup time is able to see which init system is used in the linuxes it reach on the system and configure the init= kernel option for you. Thats all folks! Greetings Sebastian Beßler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Oct 5, 2011 8:59 PM, "Grant Edwards" wrote: > > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards < grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > > > Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > > Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > > OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > > I know. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or > connects to) the init system. > > > That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > > > The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) > > that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, > > any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being > > able to understand the filesystem etc.) > > I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. ??What I don't > understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted > OS's init system. > >>> > >>> Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means > >>> that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. > >>> > >>> In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. > >> > >> So to use grub2 you have to replace the normal "init" program that's > >> started by the kernle as PID#1 with something else? > > > > No. > > I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's > init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. I think what he meant was: The *installer* portion of grub2 is aware of which pid#0 is running when it auto-creates the bootloader's configuration. That pid#0 is passed on to the kernel by the bootloader. The *bootloader* portion of grub2 don't know and don't care what is being used as pid#0 by the OS. All it knows is that the installer portion has specified something to be passed to the OS. And that's what it does, without understanding anything about pid#0. rgds,
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards >>> wrote: On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. I know. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or connects to) the init system. > That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) > that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, > any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being > able to understand the filesystem etc.) I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted OS's init system. >>> >>> Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means >>> that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. >>> >>> In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. >> >> So to use grub2 you have to replace the normal "init" program that's >> started by the kernle as PID#1 with something else? > > No. I give up. I've absolutely no idea what grub2 has to do with the OS's init system, and none of what you've written makes any sense to me. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! We are now enjoying at total mutual interaction in gmail.coman imaginary hot tub ...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:11:00 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > The thing is that GRUB2 needs to understand several filesystems to > > grab the kernel image from. It also wants to be able to use a more > > interesting resolution than 640x480. This means that it has to > > reimplement all the code for any filesystem, and all the code for > > video handling. > > Personally, I can't agree with this stance from the grub2 devs. > > It's a bootloader. It is visible for 3 seconds at boot time. I'd agree with you there, but I suppose the glossy distros want a glossy boot screen. -- Neil Bothwick Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:33:34 +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > > Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > > OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > > That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > Correct, the *kernel* executes it. > > Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: > > "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have > (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" > > The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the > rest. Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the > initsystem? The confusion is caused by using grub to describe two different modes of operation. the bootloader itself does not need access to anything but the kernel and the initramfs , if used. The grub program, run from Linux to set up the bootloader, does need access to your filesystem to be able to do its job. That is not required for booting, which is why the code is not in /boot. The GRUB2 bootloader works in much the same way as the old one, with the menu entry format being quite similar too. The difference is in the automation stuff that non-genkernel or other distro users wouldn't be interested in anyway. -- Neil Bothwick If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:32:51 -0700 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: > > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > > > >> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > >> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, > >> Upstart, OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel > >> itself executes. > > > > I know. What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls > > (or connects to) the init system. > > > >> That's the init= command line in the kernel. > >> > >> The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at > >> all) that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating > >> system, any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things > >> like being able to understand the filesystem etc.) > > > > I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. What I don't > > understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the > > booted OS's init system. > > Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means > that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. > > In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. Possibly what you meant to say is that grub2 is not aware of the OS but the grub2 installer does. Like grub and lilo before it, the installer is a Linux app; and can figure out the correct kernel parameters to use by examining the file system -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
El 04/10/2011 17:09, "Dale" escribió: > > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: >> >>> Correct, the *kernel* executes it. >>> >>> Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: >>> >>> "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have >>> (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" >>> >>> The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the rest. >>> Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the initsystem? >> >> It connects via the kernel via init=, as always. Maybe not the best >> choice of words, but the important thing is that the statement about >> GRUB2 having its "own init system and it's own set of init scripts" is >> false. I noted the "connection" between the bootloader and the init >> system (via the init= command line) to emphasize that GRUB2 has not >> its own init system. Nor init scripts. >> >> Regards. > > > I don't have that on mine. > > title Gentoo > kernel (hd0,0)/bzImage-3.0.4-1 root=/dev/sda3 > > So I guess my grub is ignorant. lol If there is no init= command line argument, /sbin/init is the default. It has been this way from the very beginning; systemd uses /sbin/systemd to be able to be installed in parallel with SysV. Regards.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Correct, the *kernel* executes it. Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the rest. Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the initsystem? It connects via the kernel via init=, as always. Maybe not the best choice of words, but the important thing is that the statement about GRUB2 having its "own init system and it's own set of init scripts" is false. I noted the "connection" between the bootloader and the init system (via the init= command line) to emphasize that GRUB2 has not its own init system. Nor init scripts. Regards. I don't have that on mine. title Gentoo kernel (hd0,0)/bzImage-3.0.4-1 root=/dev/sda3 So I guess my grub is ignorant. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:35:42 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > 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. That's not strictly true. GRUB2 uses only one config file when booting, grub.cfg, which is analogous to menu.lst. If you want you can edit this directly. The rest of the files do not live on /boot and are used to automatically generate grub.cfg if you want them too. This makes life easy for distro installer writers as they don't need to worry about scanning the hard disk to see what is installed and creating suitable menu entries, they just run grub-install. That's why distros now tend to play nicely with one another, instead of only setting up dual booting for themselves and Windows. The reason there are so many more files is because GRUB2 uses modules to be able to boot from many more devices, such as RAID or LVM. They don't all end up in /boot. So it is bigger and more capable/automatable, but you can use it just like legacy GRUB if you really want to. For most distros, GRUB2 makes a lot of sense, but many of its capabilities have little relevance to Gentoo. -- Neil Bothwick "Criminal Lawyer" is a redundancy. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards >> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >>> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. >>> >>> I know. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or >>> connects to) the init system. >>> That's the init= command line in the kernel. The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being able to understand the filesystem etc.) >>> >>> I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. ??What I don't >>> understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted >>> OS's init system. >> >> Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means >> that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. >> >> In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. > > So to use grub2 you have to replace the normal "init" program that's > started by the kernle as PID#1 with something else? No. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> >>> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. >>> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, >>> OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. >> >> I know. ??What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or >> connects to) the init system. >> >>> That's the init= command line in the kernel. >>> >>> The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) >>> that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, >>> any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being >>> able to understand the filesystem etc.) >> >> I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. ??What I don't >> understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted >> OS's init system. > > Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means > that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. > > In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. So to use grub2 you have to replace the normal "init" program that's started by the kernle as PID#1 with something else? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Where does it go when at you flush? gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tuesday, 4. October 2011 14:46:07 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > On Tuesday, 4. October 2011 14:14:24 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Grant Edwards > >> > > > wrote: > >> > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> > >> When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it > >> calls > >> whatever thingy Window uses. > >> >>> > >> >>> Right. ??And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that > >> >>> don't > >> >>> have > >> >>> any thingy to call? > >> >> > >> >> Then you don't have an operating system. > >> > > >> > Yes, I do. > >> > >> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > >> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > >> OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > >> That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > > > Correct, the *kernel* executes it. > > > > Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: > > > > "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have > > (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" > > > > The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the > > rest. Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the > > initsystem? > It connects via the kernel via init=, as always. Maybe not the best > choice of words, but the important thing is that the statement about > GRUB2 having its "own init system and it's own set of init scripts" is > false. I noted the "connection" between the bootloader and the init > system (via the init= command line) to emphasize that GRUB2 has not > its own init system. Nor init scripts. Ah, so no connection or call at all :) Thanks for clarifying > Regards. Best, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > On Tuesday, 4. October 2011 14:14:24 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls >> whatever thingy Window uses. >> >>> >> >>> Right. ??And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't >> >>> have >> >>> any thingy to call? >> >> >> >> Then you don't have an operating system. >> > >> > Yes, I do. >> >> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. >> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, >> OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. >> That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > Correct, the *kernel* executes it. > > Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: > > "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have > (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" > > The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the rest. > Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the initsystem? It connects via the kernel via init=, as always. Maybe not the best choice of words, but the important thing is that the statement about GRUB2 having its "own init system and it's own set of init scripts" is false. I noted the "connection" between the bootloader and the init system (via the init= command line) to emphasize that GRUB2 has not its own init system. Nor init scripts. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tuesday, 4. October 2011 14:14:24 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> 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. > > When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls > whatever thingy Window uses. > >>> > >>> Right. ??And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't > >>> have > >>> any thingy to call? > >> > >> Then you don't have an operating system. > > > > Yes, I do. > > Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > That's the init= command line in the kernel. Correct, the *kernel* executes it. Quoted from an earlier mail in this thread: "That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart)" The kernel executes the initsystem, the initsystem takes care of the rest. Care to explain, why grub2 needs to connect to (or call) the initsystem? > Regards. Best, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > >> Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. >> Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, >> OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. > > I know. What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or > connects to) the init system. > >> That's the init= command line in the kernel. >> >> The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) >> that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, >> any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being >> able to understand the filesystem etc.) > > I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. What I don't > understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted > OS's init system. Oh. The configuration file of GRUB2 is autogenerated, and this means that the init=systemd has to be passed to the kernel line. In that sense, GRUB2 is "aware" of it. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, walt wrote: > The answer is to let grub2 find the correct disk by checking the UUID > of the *partition table* on each disk, and then load the boot sector > from only that disk without even knowing the /dev/sd* name or the > BIOS disk number. > > I'm assuming/hoping that the new EFI mechanism will make all of this > garbage obsolete fairly soon. If Microsoft gets their way, EFI will indeed make all of this obsolete, since it will (for all practical purposes) prohibit booting anything except pre-configured factory-certified installations of MS-Windows. > Anyone here understand the basics of EFI and how it might relate to > these problems? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Didn't I buy a 1951 at Packard from you last March gmail.comin Cairo?
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. > Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, > OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. I know. What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 calls (or connects to) the init system. > That's the init= command line in the kernel. > > The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) > that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, > any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being > able to understand the filesystem etc.) I know how bootloaders like LILO and grub-legacy work. What I don't understand is the statement that grub2 is somehow aware of the booted OS's init system. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! FROZEN ENTREES may at be flung by members of gmail.comopposing SWANSON SECTS ...
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 10/04/2011 07:53 AM, Dale wrote: > Could this fix the mess with /usr and /var having to be on / or a initramfs? I'm using grub2 because it fixes a different problem that has always needed an initramfs--but not the recently lamented separate /var problem. I have an outboard ESATA disk that I can plug into various machines for making backups. If the outboard disk is powered on during boot/reboot, the BIOS will detect the disks in a different order so that old grub tries to load the boot sector from the outboard disk instead of the internal one, and fails. The answer is to let grub2 find the correct disk by checking the UUID of the *partition table* on each disk, and then load the boot sector from only that disk without even knowing the /dev/sd* name or the BIOS disk number. I'm assuming/hoping that the new EFI mechanism will make all of this garbage obsolete fairly soon. Anyone here understand the basics of EFI and how it might relate to these problems?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards >> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >>> >> 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. When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls whatever thingy Window uses. >>> >>> Right. ??And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't have >>> any thingy to call? >> >> Then you don't have an operating system. > > Yes, I do. Then any boot loader will need to call something to start it. Understand this: any Linux/Unix init system (systemd, SysV, Upstart, OpenRC) is simply a program... that the Linux kernel itself executes. That's the init= command line in the kernel. The bootloader calls an operating system. The init system (if at all) that the OS uses doesn't matter: so if you have an operating system, any bootloader should be able to boot it (bearing things like being able to understand the filesystem etc.) Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> > 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. >>> >>> When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls >>> whatever thingy Window uses. >> >> Right. ??And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't have >> any thingy to call? > > Then you don't have an operating system. Yes, I do. It just doesn't have any sort of "init" system that's visible from a bootloader. Right now I use grub-legacy to boot embedded applications written using the eCos RTOS via the el torito state2. I take it that won't be something grub2 is capable of doing? Grub2 can only boot Windows or Unix? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! ! Up ahead! It's a at DONUT HUT!! gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Alan McKinnon wrote: > No that's a completely different issue. > > But the warped thinking that produces it is exactly the same. QOTW! -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I need to discuss at BUY-BACK PROVISIONS gmail.comwith at least six studio SLEAZEBALLS!!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > 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. >> >> When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls >> whatever thingy Window uses. > > Right. And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't have > any thingy to call? Then you don't have an operating system. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >>> 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. > > When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls > whatever thingy Window uses. Right. And what about non-windows, non-Unix systems that don't have any thingy to call? >>> 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. > > I agree. That's why GRUB2 now is really 1.99, because it's not finished. > >>> 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.] > > Then stick with LILO or grub-legacy and root=UUID in your kernel > command line. That's the plan for now, but if things go the way they usually do, grub-legacy will get pulled out from under us before too long and we'll be forced to either use grub2 or stop whinging and voluteer to maintain grub-legacy. :) -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Didn't I buy a 1951 at Packard from you last March gmail.comin Cairo?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:08:16 -0700 > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> > 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), 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. It also wants to be able to use a more >> interesting resolution than 640x480. This means that it has to >> reimplement all the code for any filesystem, and all the code for >> video handling. > > Personally, I can't agree with this stance from the grub2 devs. > > It's a bootloader. It is visible for 3 seconds at boot time. Some of us care about those 3 seconds, and the flickering of the screen when going from bootloader to init splash to X. If you don't care about those 3 seconds or the flickering, then simply don't use grub2: keep using grub-legacy or lilo. > For driving the screen it should just use whatever facilities the > firmware one layer below it provides. That's your opinion, and a respectable one. I agree not everybody will (nor should) care about a pretty boot menu. However, many of us do. I'm pretty sure when grub2 hits the 2.0 version it will be optional at ./configure time wether to use or not pretty graphics and a lot of filesystems, or only VGA and ext2, and everything in between. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04 20:56, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: Replying two mails in one... Dale: >Is grub2 stable, who uses it and can you post your experience on the >switching process? I use it (1.99-rc1, which is gone from Portage) for booting my UEFI (with GPT partition table) motherboard until I can get coreboot running on it... :-) Experience wise it's, well, not much difference than old grub, with the exception of the change in paradigm: you don't edit the config file directly but instead edit "pre-config" files in order to get a working solution. For me the default settings work fine (well, I haven't been able to change the resolution); it finds my installed kernels in /boot and put's them in the boot list (the boot screen list) together with a single user version for rescue operations. IMO, it's over-complicated (I agree with Grant) but if the default settings works (with tweaks) for you... >Was it difficult? Easy? Somewhere between? Hm... Well, see above... Canek: > Me, I want my laptop/desktop computers to have the best resolution > available from moment zero, even before loading the kernel, and not a I agree with this sentiment although I think that the video firmware (or motherboard firmware) should handle this... > single flicker in my screen until my GNOME 3 is fully loaded. So I'm Yes, agree again, although I think Gnome (2,3+) is a festering piece of #%!&... :-) > gonna play with grub2 (or /firstboot, if it materializes) until it's Ok, cool. Please share your experiences. I'll try playing (when I can find the time) with coreboot and FILO: http://www.coreboot.org/Payloads#FILO Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:53:07 -0500 Dale wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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. > > > > Could this fix the mess with /usr and /var having to be on / or a > initramfs? No that's a completely different issue. But the warped thinking that produces it is exactly the same. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:08:16 -0700 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > 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), 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. It also wants to be able to use a more > interesting resolution than 640x480. This means that it has to > reimplement all the code for any filesystem, and all the code for > video handling. Personally, I can't agree with this stance from the grub2 devs. It's a bootloader. It is visible for 3 seconds at boot time. For driving the screen it should just use whatever facilities the firmware one layer below it provides. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards >> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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. When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls whatever thingy Window uses. >> 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. I agree. That's why GRUB2 now is really 1.99, because it's not finished. >> 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.] Then stick with LILO or grub-legacy and root=UUID in your kernel command line. > [...] > >> 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.] I actually think is a good idea. I also think is not for everybody. As I said, if the root=UUID kernel command line works, then nobody has nothing to worry about anything: we would be able to use whatever boot loader we want to, even LILO (if it still works). Me, I want my laptop/desktop computers to have the best resolution available from moment zero, even before loading the kernel, and not a single flicker in my screen until my GNOME 3 is fully loaded. So I'm gonna play with grub2 (or /firstboot, if it materializes) until it's able to do that. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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.edwardsYow! A dwarf is passing out at somewhere in Detroit! gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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), 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. It also wants to be able to use a more interesting resolution than 640x480. This means that it has to reimplement all the code for any filesystem, and all the code for video handling. The scripts are for semi automatic generation of the config file, which is more complicated than the one from grub-legacy. On the other hand, you only need to configure once, and run it every time you compile and put a new kernel in /boot. But if you just change your current kernel (same image file), you don't have to do anything. Note that the version is 1.99, not 2.0. It is not finished: when 2.0 is reached, hopefully you will be able to disableat ./configure time what video drivers and filesystems do you want to use. Also, the scripts to generate the config file will be standardized by then. 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. You can read an article about it here: http://lwn.net/Articles/458789/ It was only a proposal: I don't know what will be the standard in the future. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
Grant Edwards wrote: On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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. Could this fix the mess with /usr and /var having to be on / or a initramfs? Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Is grub2 stable and who uses it?
On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick 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. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Could I have a drug at overdose? gmail.com
