On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-04, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:49:56 -0500, Dale wrote: >>>> >>>>> Subject line says it pretty well. ??Is grub2 stable, who uses it and can >>>>> you post your experience on the switching process? ??Was it difficult? >>>> >>>> I use it on my netbook, which I admittedly don't boot more than a couple >>>> of times a month. It's stable, I can't comment on the switching process >>>> as I used GRUB2 from the start with this machine, it seemed a good time >>>> to get to grips with it. >>>> >>>> GRUB2 is neither complicated nor difficult, but it is different. >>> >>> I've only used it on Ubuntu, and maybe it's just Ubuntu's >>> implementation -- but it was both complicated and difficult. ??There >>> are 10X as many files, and to change anything you edit a whole set of >>> configuration files and run a utility that generates _another_ set of >>> configuration files. >>> >>> Compared to "vi /boot/grub/menu.lst; reboot", that's complicated. >>> >>>> If you try to think in terms of legacy GRUB, you will have more >>>> problems than if you approach is as learning a new system. >>> >>> At first glace, grub2 looks like a minature Unix installation whose >>> purpose is to boot a bigger Unix installation. ??It's got it's own init >>> system and it's own set of init scripts. >> >> That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have >> (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart), > > I'm curious: what if you don't have one? I use grub-legacy to boot > stuff other than Unix.
When I said "it connects", I mean "calls". The same way it calls whatever thingy Window uses. >> and it has scripts to *generate* the config file. >> >> The thing is that GRUB2 needs to understand several filesystems to >> grab the kernel image from. > > I understand why GRUB2 is complicated. It's the statement that it's > not complicated that I was disagreeing with. > >> It also wants to be able to use a more interesting resolution than >> 640x480. > > That I don't understand. It's a bootloader. It needs to allow you to > pick one of a handfull of choices and boot that choice. I agree. That's why GRUB2 now is really 1.99, because it's not finished. >> This means that it has to reimplement all the code for any >> filesystem, > > That part I understand. > >> and all the code for video handling. > > I don't really understand the need for that, but I'm somebody who > still regularly uses a serial console. [Insert the usual "I remember > when" grumbling here.] Then stick with LILO or grub-legacy and root=UUID in your kernel command line. > [...] > >> However, in the last LPC, it was suggested that replicating filesystem >> and video code on the kernel and grub was a terrible idea, and some >> developers have suggested to use a /firstboot partition with a simple >> filesystem, and populated with a kernel image and an initramfs. That >> will mean that to boot Linux, we would use Linux. > > Yea, I've read about that. The mind wobbles. I suppose it's no worse > than VAXes having a PDP-11 inside to help it start up. [I'm not > really sure that's true, but I heard it from several people who should > have known.] I actually think is a good idea. I also think is not for everybody. As I said, if the root=UUID kernel command line works, then nobody has nothing to worry about anything: we would be able to use whatever boot loader we want to, even LILO (if it still works). Me, I want my laptop/desktop computers to have the best resolution available from moment zero, even before loading the kernel, and not a single flicker in my screen until my GNOME 3 is fully loaded. So I'm gonna play with grub2 (or /firstboot, if it materializes) until it's able to do that. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
