On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Frank Peters <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:04:50 +1100 > Lie Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What's the advantage of LILO nowadays? I used grub because of two > > reasons: 1) I don't need to re-install the MBR when changing grub's > > .conf file and 2) I can edit configuration at boot time, useful when > > you messed up your grub.conf. Last time I checked (admittedly long > > time ago) LILO cannot do both of these. Granted, I've never used LILO, > > does it boot faster or runs on more platforms or is there any > > particular reason why you used it? > > > > For one thing, it is completely independent of the kernel and some > were expressing concerns about compatibility with 64-bit. > > Lilo is also simpler, but it is not as versatile as grub. > > My point is not that lilo is an advantage, but that it should not > be overlooked by those who may not require a complex set-up. > The trend seems to be to trash everything in favour of grub. > > The legacy boot method is being slowly eliminated and will be > replaced by EFI. For this there is elilo, which I hope to be > using. > > Frank Peters > > Yes, simplicity is why I have continued to stick with lilo (since 1995). It just always has worked. There's nothing more frustrating for me than trying to boot a machine and being presented with a grub > and having no clue what went wrong or where to go (although, yes, that's because of experience with lilo - and lack of it with grub). I did try to use grub for a time when it became popular, but after my first experience with it trying to recover from a failed boot I gave up. The main advantage to me - why I started using it - was that it plays well with the Windows loader. I don't do those kind of dual-boot machines anymore, but it was very convenient being able to recover a Windows boot manager - or install a new one - and all I had to do to get back to my Linux boot was edit the BOOT.INI file. ... HH
