On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11, Uwe Dippel wrote: > David Horton Add to Address Book wrote: > > I have one minor suggestion for improvement. I think it would be a > > good idea to change the name of the default configuration file to > > something other than menu.lst. > > You're right. I came from RedHat to Debian and found a new world. > (RedHat does call it grub.conf.) > > > Perhaps a better choice might be 'grub.conf' or 'boot.conf'. > > I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf > And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand. > > 2 sen, > > Uwe >
Well, I'd say, please call it _either_ grub.conf _or_ menu.lst but please don't add to the confusion by introducing yet another name for it! As for where to put it, I'd have to disagree with the /etc idea - mainly because (IMO) it's most easily found if kept with the other GRUB files, as at present. But also, GRUB is not technically a Unix application (as I understand), so UNIX rules about where to put things shouldn't necessarily apply. GRUB can be (and on my system it is) resident on a FAT16 drive i.e. DOS/Windows. I could create a 'etc' DOS directory just for grub.conf but why? (I hasten to add, most of my system is Linux). cr _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub