Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:46:48 David A. Bandel wrote: >> Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > [snip] > >>> grub (at least on debian) has that too. Just grub-reboot to pick the >>> kernel for the next boot, and after that it will go back to the current >>> one again. >> Interesting. But not only not intuitive, more trouble than it's worth: >> grub-reboot 3 >> vs >> lilo -R Linux | BSD | Solaris >> >> what was 3 again? My OpenBSD install or my Solaris install. Now do I >> count from 0 for this or is that just disks and partitions? Bad enough >> the GRUB developers couldn't decide on a "standard" hard drive syntax >> already in use, like sdx or hdx or wdx or even the gobbledy gook that is >> Solaris device files, nor could they implement simple labels so even >> idiots can understand what they're going to reboot into. >> >> I'm already confused enough. > > I think you are missing the point. grub is a boot loader, it is not an > operating system and should not use a specific operating system convention > for it's naming. Which names are these "standards" you speak of? The Linux > ones? BSD ones? Solaris? Windows? Something else? Whatever Linus feels like > having the kernel call them tomorrow? They are all different and not set in > stone (unlike major/minor numbers). Seeing as these names are only valid once > grub has already finished doing it's job, it's silly to enforce say Linux > conventions on software that might load Solaris. The grub devs took the only > sane way out - all disks are hds and are numbered rom 0 according to a sane > discovery sequence.
No, you've missed the point. A boot loader is not a convenience item, but essential. These two programs work in such fundamentally different ways that to drop one is not prudent when we're only talking about two. And AFAIC, the GRUB devs did everyone a disservice in not using standing conventions and having the software translate it from that nomenclature into one it could use (if it couldn't use the nomenclature of the OS it's booting). LILO is at least sane and readable from that standpoint -- and it doesn't use /dev/hda or /dev/sda, it translates that for us into 3,0 or 8,0 used by the OS to refer to the devices. Not even boot loaders should be geek elitist garbage. But just because seemingly every distro has GRUB as default on x86 systems doesn't mean LILO has become irrelevant. When Caldera (the first to use this) came out with it as default in 1997 (IIRC), it crossed my eyes and I thought: gee, I hope the folks writing this start using standard OS conventions for disks (let the software do the work instead of me). Over 10 years later and I can't understand why the ridiculous conventions persist. ANYONE can read and understand lilo.conf (assuming they read English). But when I saw GRUB (having admin'd SUN and ULTRIX for some 10 years at this time) my head hurt. It still hurts when I see it and why I immediately change it. I don't need my job made harder on purpose. > > [snip] > >>> Also grub is written in C, lilo is assembly. I know which one I find >>> easier to maintain and add features to. >> I haven't the time or desire to maintain or add features to lilo, grub, >> or any of a thousand plus other packages. I install the binaries and >> run with them. If I tinker w/ 3 packages a year, that's a lot. >> >> Lilo needs to stay in the exam. > > Well, that's your opinion. Others might disagree. The only sane criterion > I've > seen yet in this thread to decide if lilo stays or goes is "how many distros > use it by default" and perhaps "how many people use it in real life"? > > If you find it useful, that's great - continue to do so. You have the same > choice w.r.t. qmail or djbdns[1] for example. But that doesn't mean it is > sufficiently pervasive to warrant inclusion in a generic exam. Again, GRUB/LILO are not convenience items. I can run a server without it running DNS or even SMTP. But I can't run it at all if I can't boot it, so your argument is irrelevant. If a new LPIC-1 admin enters my shop, upgrades the kernel and reboots without running lilo, he's going to have a hard time recovering (while I wonder how he passed the exam). > > Do you not think that an LPIC-1 qualified person is clued-up enough to go and > find out how lilo works should they decide to give it a try? Do you also not > think that if someone can show he understands the basics of bootstrapping via > grub questions, that the purpose of the Objective has been satisfied? No, I don't. Anytime I get asked a question about GRUB I have to go look it up because the conventions are so bizarre and non-intuitive it becomes a chore to use (another reason not to use it). Nothing this elitist should be a default, but unfortunately is. I'm waiting for sanity and a return to LILO. > > [1] that Dan is the author of both is not relevant here. > David A. Bandel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
