Forgive me if I'm off-side by interacting on this. No bad feeling involved.
I am far from Ralf's level, but I think i understand him in this case. I do use a bootloader that grub wrote for me. Having this said, uninstalling grub rendered boot-up about 20 times faster. I realised this as i got fed up of constantly getting software updates from grub. The difference in startup speed is quite remarquable. Now, perhaps i am missing something? Is there any good reason to keep grub once the bootloader is written? I used grub in the first place because my bootlaoder was corrupt after installing from the live DVDiso on a usb stick. Have a good awaketime all! *set On 11/06/2012 02:26 PM, Andrew Huys wrote: > > On 11/06/2012 08:24 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:00:50 +0200 >> Janne Jokitalo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> $ sudo apt-get install --no-install-recommends >>> >>> ...will get you where you want. >> Thank you :) >> > Ralph- > Just wondering why you don't want to use a bootloader? > > > > -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
