| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to |
| 3 |
> fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are |
| 4 |
> screwed. |
| 5 |
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and with |
| 6 |
> a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you do |
| 7 |
> not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on |
| 8 |
> your bootloader partition. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is not |
| 11 |
> friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed. Until |
| 12 |
> grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it cannot |
| 13 |
> be allowed to be the sole controller of booting. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The grub config syntax is not really that bad; the main issue is that |
| 16 |
grub-mkconfig generates a very complex config file to try and cover a |
| 17 |
lot of possible systems. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
grub is pretty much designed to be able to boot any OS you have |
| 20 |
installed on any filesystem. That flexibility carries with it a level |
| 21 |
of complexity as well. If you don't need that flexibility, a simpler |
| 22 |
boot loader is always an option for you. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you want an "OS-independent" boot loader, the syslinux family of |
| 25 |
boot loaders might be a good choice for you. Or keep using grub |
| 26 |
legacy. Just don't expect either of them to be able to boot Linux from |
| 27 |
ZFS, or ext4 on lvm on luks. That's where grub2 comes in handy. |
Archives