1 |
On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:49:56 -0500, Dale wrote: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>>> Subject line says it pretty well. ??Is grub2 stable, who uses it and can |
7 |
>>>> you post your experience on the switching process? ??Was it difficult? |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> I use it on my netbook, which I admittedly don't boot more than a couple |
10 |
>>> of times a month. It's stable, I can't comment on the switching process |
11 |
>>> as I used GRUB2 from the start with this machine, it seemed a good time |
12 |
>>> to get to grips with it. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> GRUB2 is neither complicated nor difficult, but it is different. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> I've only used it on Ubuntu, and maybe it's just Ubuntu's |
17 |
>> implementation -- but it was both complicated and difficult. ??There |
18 |
>> are 10X as many files, and to change anything you edit a whole set of |
19 |
>> configuration files and run a utility that generates _another_ set of |
20 |
>> configuration files. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Compared to "vi /boot/grub/menu.lst; reboot", that's complicated. |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>>> If you try to think in terms of legacy GRUB, you will have more |
25 |
>>> problems than if you approach is as learning a new system. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> At first glace, grub2 looks like a minature Unix installation whose |
28 |
>> purpose is to boot a bigger Unix installation. ??It's got it's own init |
29 |
>> system and it's own set of init scripts. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have |
32 |
> (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart), |
33 |
|
34 |
I'm curious: what if you don't have one? I use grub-legacy to boot |
35 |
stuff other than Unix. |
36 |
|
37 |
> and it has scripts to *generate* the config file. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> The thing is that GRUB2 needs to understand several filesystems to |
40 |
> grab the kernel image from. |
41 |
|
42 |
I understand why GRUB2 is complicated. It's the statement that it's |
43 |
not complicated that I was disagreeing with. |
44 |
|
45 |
> It also wants to be able to use a more interesting resolution than |
46 |
> 640x480. |
47 |
|
48 |
That I don't understand. It's a bootloader. It needs to allow you to |
49 |
pick one of a handfull of choices and boot that choice. |
50 |
|
51 |
> This means that it has to reimplement all the code for any |
52 |
> filesystem, |
53 |
|
54 |
That part I understand. |
55 |
|
56 |
> and all the code for video handling. |
57 |
|
58 |
I don't really understand the need for that, but I'm somebody who |
59 |
still regularly uses a serial console. [Insert the usual "I remember |
60 |
when" grumbling here.] |
61 |
|
62 |
[...] |
63 |
|
64 |
> However, in the last LPC, it was suggested that replicating filesystem |
65 |
> and video code on the kernel and grub was a terrible idea, and some |
66 |
> developers have suggested to use a /firstboot partition with a simple |
67 |
> filesystem, and populated with a kernel image and an initramfs. That |
68 |
> will mean that to boot Linux, we would use Linux. |
69 |
|
70 |
Yea, I've read about that. The mind wobbles. I suppose it's no worse |
71 |
than VAXes having a PDP-11 inside to help it start up. [I'm not |
72 |
really sure that's true, but I heard it from several people who should |
73 |
have known.] |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! A dwarf is passing out |
77 |
at somewhere in Detroit! |
78 |
gmail.com |