Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
Le 30.06.2014 20:33, Ric Moore a écrit : On 06/30/2014 06:24 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 28.06.2014 05:14, slitt a écrit : On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...] > Grub is a *boot loader*. Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more. > What do you expect it to do? Mind read? I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make it do. I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do, that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes, keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that feature out. In other words, grub1. SteveT Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a single easy text file as configuration. It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with LILO, but just in case... I installed grub-customizer from source and it works a charm, with grub2. Ric Oh, and (sorry for long time reply, I did not found lot of time to read my personal mails) there is another bootloader in the wild. Extlinux. I'm tinkering with it, since I want to build an external disk able to boot various live ISOs (tails and kali to name them) plus 3 distros (probably Debian for real uses, plus gentoo and a *BSD for experimenting). For now my disk was not bootable, but that's a story for another thread, in the case I won't be able to solve my issue myself. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4ebd17ad78c9be7b9fd1a5be4a4a8...@neutralite.org
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Tue 01 Jul 2014 at 03:43:37 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:40:02 AM UTC+5:30, Tom H wrote: > >> > >> Why do you think that grub2's multiboot replaces grub1's kernel? > >> > >> Its main use is to load the core.img of another grub2 install. I don't > >> think that you can load a kernel with it. > > > > The grub guys explaining (to me!) the configfile and multiboot commands: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-grub/2011-01/msg00029.html > > The "grub guys" (I don't know what makes you think that the person who > answered you is associated with grub in any way because grub-help@ is > similar to debian-user@) are telling you in that post exactly what I > told you: "multiboot" is used to load the core.img of another grub2 > install. The kernel grub1 command loads the kernel of another install. > I've never seen an instance of (or the documentation for) "kernel" > loading a grub1 stage1_5 or stage2. Ineptness on my part. I was working from memory and, in addition, omitted the word "line" after "command". Not that restoring it increases the usefulness of the contribution above its original 0%. > > I really dont want to get into the quality of docs argument. > > Unsurprising since you're wrong! LOL He is right about the high quality advice from respondents (some are grub developers) on help-grub, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014070430.gf3...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:40:02 AM UTC+5:30, Tom H wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Brian wrote: >>> On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 14:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > > I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > What do they do? Where are they documented? > [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] I don't know whether configfile and multiboot are documented in the info pages (I find info unusable) but this is the upstream grub manual: >>> >>> A few years ago the complaints about grub's documentation were possibly >>> justified. Today, less so, And even if there are improvements which can >>> made it is hardly a justification for the "bring back grub legacy and >>> give us abandoned software" faction to be considered at all seriously. >>> configfile is documented in the info pages. The multiboot command >>> replaces the kernel command; you're on your own with that! >> >> Why do you think that grub2's multiboot replaces grub1's kernel? >> >> Its main use is to load the core.img of another grub2 install. I don't >> think that you can load a kernel with it. > > The grub guys explaining (to me!) the configfile and multiboot commands: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-grub/2011-01/msg00029.html The "grub guys" (I don't know what makes you think that the person who answered you is associated with grub in any way because grub-help@ is similar to debian-user@) are telling you in that post exactly what I told you: "multiboot" is used to load the core.img of another grub2 install. The kernel grub1 command loads the kernel of another install. I've never seen an instance of (or the documentation for) "kernel" loading a grub1 stage1_5 or stage2. > I really dont want to get into the quality of docs argument. Unsurprising since you're wrong! LOL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sx-tuy-ggd6oclfcgeoc+-6z8wq9zxlb07ovihk6cb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:40:02 AM UTC+5:30, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 14:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > >>> I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > >>> What do they do? Where are they documented? > >>> [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] > >> I don't know whether configfile and multiboot are documented in the > >> info pages (I find info unusable) but this is the upstream grub > >> manual: > > A few years ago the complaints about grub's documentation were possibly > > justified. Today, less so, And even if there are improvements which can > > made it is hardly a justification for the "bring back grub legacy and > > give us abandoned software" faction to be considered at all seriously. > > configfile is documented in the info pages. The multiboot command > > replaces the kernel command; you're on your own with that! > Why do you think that grub2's multiboot replaces grub1's kernel? > Its main use is to load the core.img of another grub2 install. I don't > think that you can load a kernel with it. The grub guys explaining (to me!) the configfile and multiboot commands: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-grub/2011-01/msg00029.html I really dont want to get into the quality of docs argument. Just giving the above to offset the claim that grub devs are 'patronizing' -- this has not been my experience -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/0857054a-4c91-4613-b2d6-944a95c88...@googlegroups.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Brian wrote: > On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 14:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: >>> >>> I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). >>> What do they do? Where are they documented? >>> [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] >> >> I don't know whether configfile and multiboot are documented in the >> info pages (I find info unusable) but this is the upstream grub >> manual: > > A few years ago the complaints about grub's documentation were possibly > justified. Today, less so, And even if there are improvements which can > made it is hardly a justification for the "bring back grub legacy and > give us abandoned software" faction to be considered at all seriously. > > configfile is documented in the info pages. The multiboot command > replaces the kernel command; you're on your own with that! Why do you think that grub2's multiboot replaces grub1's kernel? Its main use is to load the core.img of another grub2 install. I don't think that you can load a kernel with it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syqe3n25e0tx9-qt_vbzovfogqeuhoozgptjuc--je...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 16:06:32 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > Thanks for the great suggestion. I had originally ruled out LILO (which > > I used back in the 20th century) because it can't deal with EFI boot, > > No, but there's a ... I'm not sure if it's a fork of LILO or a totally > separate project ... called ELILO that can be booted from EFI. Should suit people who demand their software to be either abandoned or unlikely to have any further development. The problem with it is that its developer has a liking for the dark side. http://sourceforge.net/p/elilo/mailman/message/31524008/ >Off-note: Is ELILO still under active development? Because there seems >to be no update after v3.16 which was released in March 2013 (8 months >ago). Even if it is no longer actively maintained, providing the >sources via GIT will allow contributors to fork the code and maintain >it in github/gitorious/bitbucket etc.. Elilo is still actively maintained solely by me but no longer in active development. Elilo was designed in the early 2000's for EFI and Itanium, thats why it exists. As neither of those are very relevant any more It is legacy code at the end of its life cycle naturally. Im really not accepting new features or new feature requests. New releases are for major bug fixes for people that just cant live without elilo and thats about it and I have no bugs waiting to release. New bootloader efforts and contributions should rightfully go to Grub2. It is in active development, has many active contributors and is accepting new features and it supports UEFI and secure boot now and is finally fairly well positioned to fulfill its original intention of being the "GRand Unified Bootloader". It could be so if it supported network booting and really if elilo didnt exist anymore Im sure that somebody wouldve contributed the feature by now, most likely from a cloud team. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630193254.ge3...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 14:05:10 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > > > > I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > > What do they do? Where are they documented? > > [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] > > I don't know whether configfile and multiboot are documented in the > info pages (I find info unusable) but this is the upstream grub > manual: A few years ago the complaints about grub's documentation were possibly justified. Today, less so, And even if there are improvements which can made it is hardly a justification for the "bring back grub legacy and give us abandoned software" faction to be considered at all seriously. configfile is documented in the info pages. The multiboot command replaces the kernel command; you're on your own with that! > http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/index.html > > I've just looked at the debian wiki's documentation and it's > surpringly sparse; unless I landed on the wrong page. > > ubuntuforums.org has a very good documentation thread/sticky and the > arch and gentoo wikis have good documentation. Regretably so. But all three *are* wikis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/30062014192225.cbffe24af...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On 06/30/2014 06:24 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 28.06.2014 05:14, slitt a écrit : On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...] > Grub is a *boot loader*. Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more. > What do you expect it to do? Mind read? I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make it do. I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do, that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes, keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that feature out. In other words, grub1. SteveT Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a single easy text file as configuration. It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with LILO, but just in case... I installed grub-customizer from source and it works a charm, with grub2. Ric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b1ad6e.2000...@gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brian wrote: > On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 13:42:51 -0400, Tom H wrote: >> >> Removing "splash" disables the bootsplash but it doesn't disable >> plymouth. With upstart, plymouth is the interface for fscking or >> decrypting a partition. > > Oh! I've never used Ubuntu in anger and thought the appearence of boot > messages meant it was disabled. Mind you, I only spent seven minutes on > it, unlike Steve Litt's seven years. And I've no axe to grind. > > I had got the impression that upstart and plymouth are intimately > connected but didn't look any further. Thank you for taking the time to > clarify the situation. You're welcome. Even if the bootsplash is enabled, you can press esc to see the boot messages. AFAIR, if you press esc again, you'll go back to the bootsplash - but I'm not 100% sure. It's too far back fro me to be sure, but I think that Fedora used plymouth before it switched to upstart (plymouth is developed by an RH guy) so it is/was probably integrated into sysvinit too. But Uubntu had to work on integrating it into upstart and mountall - and upstart needs AFAIUI because it serialized input/output in spite of upstart's parallel boot model. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxYAMu9yyKVK1gGB2PC7rARQAZr11Vkc8Sy9c=p6in...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Steve Litt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:24:41 +0200 > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: >> >> Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. >> LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a >> single easy text file as configuration. >> It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not >> seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? >> Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub >> installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original >> windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change >> anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on >> computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with >> LILO, but just in case... > > Thanks for the great suggestion. I had originally ruled out LILO (which > I used back in the 20th century) because it can't deal with EFI boot, > as I remember. But (let's all take some time to laugh), my boot disk is > a 250 SSD with an MRB partition, so EFI (and secure boot) is a > non-issue. There's elilo. I've never used it so I have no idea how close it is to lilo config-wise. There are also gummiboot and refind. Neither are packaged for Debian but they're both good efi boot managers. If you don't like systemd you might not like gummiboot because it's developed by Kay Sievers. It's what I use on my laptop. Another reason that you might not like it is that you have to have your kernel and initramfs on the efi partition. refind on the other hand is slightly more complex and understands some filesystems so you don't need to mount the efi partition as "/boot" or copy the kernel and initramfs to "/boot/efi". They're both boot managers not bootloaders so you have to ensure that the efi stub is compiled into the kernel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sxryqwezcazpmsodh4n8-mqtm6zhxd7fboevamzx0u...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > > There used to be a grub wiki: grub.enbug.org. The link is now dead. > > It can however still be found in the webarchive: > https://web.archive.org/web/20100819173835/http://grub.enbug.org/FrontPage The grub manual that I posted earlier was somewhat inspired by the engrub pages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sxtmhhczz5ljwl-owbbeego-zumxhdfbhdcnpr_wbd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Rusi Mody wrote: > On Saturday, June 28, 2014 9:20:02 PM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: >> On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 09:00:30 +0200, Thierry de Coulon wrote: >>> On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote: PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-) >>> >>> Yes, this is one problem. There are others: >> >> 20 man pages and an info manual amounts to non-existent documentation? > > I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > What do they do? Where are they documented? > [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] I don't know whether configfile and multiboot are documented in the info pages (I find info unusable) but this is the upstream grub manual: http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/index.html I've just looked at the debian wiki's documentation and it's surpringly sparse; unless I landed on the wrong page. ubuntuforums.org has a very good documentation thread/sticky and the arch and gentoo wikis have good documentation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw6t7UoNvRoU2Yk3OE02tg8-prty-p5Tp6xopi=lxd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 13:42:51 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 13:40:48 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:34:54 -0400 > >> Tom H wrote: > >> > >> functional, graphical boots, framebuffer boots, enforced GUI login just > >> get in the way. > >> > >> Plymouth sux! > > > > Plymouth can be disabled at boot time by removing "splash" from the > > kernel command line. Removing "quiet" may also be a good thing. I hope > > this technical information helps you if you ever go back to Ubuntu. > > KMS and grub give you a framebuffer boot on Debian... > > Removing "splash" disables the bootsplash but it doesn't disable > plymouth. With upstart, plymouth is the interface for fscking or > decrypting a partition. Oh! I've never used Ubuntu in anger and thought the appearence of boot messages meant it was disabled. Mind you, I only spent seven minutes on it, unlike Steve Litt's seven years. And I've no axe to grind. I had got the impression that upstart and plymouth are intimately connected but didn't look any further. Thank you for taking the time to clarify the situation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630175930.gd3...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Brian wrote: > On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 13:40:48 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:34:54 -0400 >> Tom H wrote: >> >> functional, graphical boots, framebuffer boots, enforced GUI login just >> get in the way. >> >> Plymouth sux! > > Plymouth can be disabled at boot time by removing "splash" from the > kernel command line. Removing "quiet" may also be a good thing. I hope > this technical information helps you if you ever go back to Ubuntu. KMS and grub give you a framebuffer boot on Debian... Removing "splash" disables the bootsplash but it doesn't disable plymouth. With upstart, plymouth is the interface for fscking or decrypting a partition. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sz-qz_u-etrqyv7sdjz0ygc+z+tjtmu2+pr61v1px5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:34:54 -0400 > Tom H wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Lisi Reisz >> wrote: >>> On Sunday 22 June 2014 01:31:50 Steve Litt wrote: The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away from both Plymouth and *dm. >>> >>> I hadn't heard of Plymouth. I just googled it and blanched. Thanks >>> for the heads up, Steve! One more reason why I shall avoid >>> *buntu. :-( >> >> (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian >> users in general and on this list's users in particular...) > > I don't think so. I think the sniping is well deserved, and unique to > bad aspects of Ubuntu. I haven't heard one person gripe about Ubuntu's > easy and readable fonts, or Ubuntu's great hardware detection. But > when it comes to Plymouth, people gripe. It's the biggest of several > reasons I switched to Debian from Ubuntu for my daily driver. The issue isn't whether it's deserved or not but whether it belongs on this list. >> There's a lot of crap on the internet about plymouth. >> >> Ubuntu defaulted to both plymouth and kms with 10.04 and because one >> of plymouth's roles is to provide a bootsplash it was blamed for the >> lack of a pure text console or for video boot problems. > > OK, here's what I know: My monitor (and please don't tell me to spend > $250 for one that "does it better") takes several seconds to autodetect > a resolution change, including the framebuffer, which Plymouth changes > several times during boot. So I miss most of the boot messages. > > And by the way, the Plymouth-bestowed framebuffer has type too small > for me to read well. All I wanted: I mean *ALL* I wanted, was to have > my boot messages scroll up the screen as ASCII text like 1999 RedHat. > Is that such a huge request? Apparently yes, when Plymouth gets > involved. > > I know, I know, if I understood Grub 2 I could fix all these problems. > Yeah, exactly. Grub 2 is one of a long list of softwares that fixed a > nonexistent problem and turned their product into an entangled mess of > complexity. Gnome2->Gnome3, Gnome2->Unity, Kmail->kmail2, and > Grub->Grub2. And of course, when troubleshooting Grub2, every time you > want to see results of a change, you need to reboot. What could > *possibly* go wrong. And don't forget, when you look on the web for > info on how to work with Grub2, you see all sorts of conflicting > information. > > So you know what? Plymouth sux big time, especially when packaged with > Grub2 and lightdm (and who knows what systemd will throw into the mix). > If I've reflected badly on the list, well gee, I'm sorry, but as a 7 > year Ubuntu user, I have more than a passing acquaintance with > Plymouth, and I view it as 100% sabotage. So your problem(s) might stem from grub, kms, or plymouth or any combination of two or three of them but plymouth is the guilty party. And you can't even be bothered to change the grub settings to try to remedy your problems. You'expenced and intelligent enough to know better. But if you feel like ranting, rant away! :) >> There were some purely plymouth problems (for example, it initially >> wouldn't display a progress bar when a partition was being fsck'd) but >> the whole anti-plymouth thing is very much overdone. > > I think the whole pro-plymouth thing is very much overdone. Really, I > don't need decorative gegaws or framebuffers on my virtual terminals. I > need text I can read, and if there's a boot problem, text I can > troubleshoot with. > > All I want from Linux is something that works, and that I can repair > with a few tools. If I wanted pretty, I'd be an Apple guy. If I wanted > commodity pseudo-pretty in an entanged mess best maintained with trial > and error, I'd get Windows. But I want functional. When you want > functional, graphical boots, framebuffer boots, enforced GUI login just > get in the way. I don't consider myself pro-plymouth. It's just that it's the default on RHEL6 (and I spend 11/12 hours per day on those systems - although not booting and rebooting!) and Fedora and Ubuntu, so I just have and "use" them. Same as for systemd. Once Debian and Ubuntu force me (I suspect that in Debian's case it'll be with jessie+1) to switch, I'll initially miss sysvinit and upstart but after 3-4 years it'll be a case of out of sight, out of mind. I dual-boot Ubuntu and Fedora on my laptop. I have the bootsplash off for both and I don't have any problems. There's a video reset when the initramfs switches over but that's it. I've installed Ubuntu on my parents' and my neighbor's laptops and they don't have any problems with the bootsplash on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SwQwc=tQmxzG3pof9M1_jDJZ9ketn1VMh5j4=peac_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:53:41 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: > Thanks for the great suggestion. I had originally ruled out LILO > (which I used back in the 20th century) because it can't deal with > EFI boot, as I remember. But (let's all take some time to laugh), > my boot disk is a 250 SSD with an MRB partition, so EFI (and > secure boot) is a non-issue. Be careful if you use RAID with LILOn though: it doesn't handle the last version of the RAID header. -- neo93: Why wasn't you at school?? The blonde: I had a 37° fever signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:24:41 +0200 > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > > > > Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. > > LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a > > single easy text file as configuration. > > It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not > > seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? > > Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub > > installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original > > windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change > > anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on > > computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with > > LILO, but just in case... > > Thanks for the great suggestion. I had originally ruled out LILO (which > I used back in the 20th century) because it can't deal with EFI boot, No, but there's a ... I'm not sure if it's a fork of LILO or a totally separate project ... called ELILO that can be booted from EFI. > as I remember. But (let's all take some time to laugh), my boot disk is > a 250 SSD with an MRB partition, so EFI (and secure boot) is a > non-issue. As I understand it, the ability for EFI to boot from an MBR is optional (EFI + GPT is mandatory, but some firmwares allow EFI + MBR). YMMV. > > So you know what? If I ever lose my boot and can't grub2-fix it in 20 > minutes, I'll try LILO. > > I liked Grub1 better than LILO because Grub understands ext[2|3|4], so > you don't need to do all the recursive thinking and the weird jails to > install Grub, and having a boot file change its sector doesn't remove > your bootability, really, LILO was pretty predictable once you really > understood it. > > You know, I have a bunch of too-tiny disks hanging around, and my > intent was to take them out to the driveway and do my 24 oz hammer > drive-wipe on them. Instead, I think I'll take a page from your book, > and use those drives for nothing but / and /boot and maybe /usr, and > use a modern >1TB drive for the rest, and then I can use LILO. > > > > > I guess that there are other boot loaders (able to work on ext* file > > systems, of course) too around, but I do not know them. > > Most can't understand EFI boot, which removes them from contention for > a lot of jobs. The booter meant for booting floppies and CDs can be > hacked to boot your system, but as I remember when researching it, it > was ugly. > > I don't know how big the current Grub source code is, but maybe I > should just grab it, remove all code bestowing "pretty", get rid of > grub.d and just have everything in grub.conf, and call it SimpleGrub. To > paraphrase Henry Ford, "SimpleGrub is available in any color scheme you > want, as long as you want white text on black background." > > Thanks for the great suggestion. I'm going to use it just as soon as I > get a chance. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ > Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630105341.65ca9...@mydesq2.domain.cxm > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630150632.ga5...@darac.org.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:24:41 +0200 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. > LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a > single easy text file as configuration. > It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not > seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? > Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub > installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original > windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change > anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on > computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with > LILO, but just in case... Thanks for the great suggestion. I had originally ruled out LILO (which I used back in the 20th century) because it can't deal with EFI boot, as I remember. But (let's all take some time to laugh), my boot disk is a 250 SSD with an MRB partition, so EFI (and secure boot) is a non-issue. So you know what? If I ever lose my boot and can't grub2-fix it in 20 minutes, I'll try LILO. I liked Grub1 better than LILO because Grub understands ext[2|3|4], so you don't need to do all the recursive thinking and the weird jails to install Grub, and having a boot file change its sector doesn't remove your bootability, really, LILO was pretty predictable once you really understood it. You know, I have a bunch of too-tiny disks hanging around, and my intent was to take them out to the driveway and do my 24 oz hammer drive-wipe on them. Instead, I think I'll take a page from your book, and use those drives for nothing but / and /boot and maybe /usr, and use a modern >1TB drive for the rest, and then I can use LILO. > > I guess that there are other boot loaders (able to work on ext* file > systems, of course) too around, but I do not know them. Most can't understand EFI boot, which removes them from contention for a lot of jobs. The booter meant for booting floppies and CDs can be hacked to boot your system, but as I remember when researching it, it was ugly. I don't know how big the current Grub source code is, but maybe I should just grab it, remove all code bestowing "pretty", get rid of grub.d and just have everything in grub.conf, and call it SimpleGrub. To paraphrase Henry Ford, "SimpleGrub is available in any color scheme you want, as long as you want white text on black background." Thanks for the great suggestion. I'm going to use it just as soon as I get a chance. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140630105341.65ca9...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
Le 28.06.2014 05:14, slitt a écrit : On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...] > Grub is a *boot loader*. Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more. > What do you expect it to do? Mind read? I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make it do. I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do, that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes, keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that feature out. In other words, grub1. SteveT Otherwise, if you do not like grub, there are other boot loaders. LILO at least works fine, and seems to be ok for your requirements: a single easy text file as configuration. It's what I'm doing, excepted at work for 2 reasons: it does not seems to support the new crap named... how is it named? Secure boot? Something like that. The fun thing about that is that the grub installation did not allowed me to have a dual boot with the original windows, so I could be using LILO right now it would not change anything. The other reason is that I do prefer mainstream stuff on computers that I do not want to tinker. Never had any problem with LILO, but just in case... I guess that there are other boot loaders (able to work on ext* file systems, of course) too around, but I do not know them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/f22e9dc3a149d12f230fd6a4c8490...@neutralite.org
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sun 29 Jun 2014 at 11:33:29 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 6/28/14, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 23:14:26 -0400, slitt wrote:
>
> >> that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined
> >> kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes,
> >> keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that
> >> feature out.
> >
> > The simplest possible grub.cfg would contain
> >
> >menuentry "DescriptiveMenuItem {
> >linux (hd0,msdos1)/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1
> >initrd (hd0,msdos1)/initrd.gz
> >}
> >
> > This assumes a machine with a single disk and the root file system
> > (essentially where /sbin/init resides) on the first partition of the
> > same disk.
> >
> > There we are, a predefined kernel/initrd/disk combination. Four lines in
> > a single file. Problem solved.
> >
> > "No it's not!" will be the cry, "update-grub will overwite my grub.cfg."
> > Correct; so use dpkg-divert on /usr/sbin/update-grub and those nasty,
> > prettifying files in /etc/default/grub and /etc/grub.d will languish
> > unused. The problem is now well and truly solved.
>
> That was _awesome_!
>
> Thank you so much Brian!
Thank you, but I'm embarassed now because the diverting wasn't explained.
dpkg-divert --rename --add /usr/sbin/update-grub
ln -s /bin/true /usr/sbin/update-grub
The first command ensures any new file version is put on your machine.
The second one does nothing, which is what is wanted if grub.cfg is to
remain unalterd when, for example, there is a new kernel installed.
The idea is courtesy of Colin Watson, Debian, Ubuntu and GRUB developer.
I often use a very minimal grub.cfg on USB sticks which move between
machines and then the stanza above is better as
menuentry "DescriptiveMenuItem {
search --label --set=root[or use UUID]
linux /vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1
initrd /initrd.gz
}
"search" determines the grub device ((hd0,msdos1), say) and puts it
before /vmlinuz and /initrd, making the two stanzas equivalent. The
second is obviously more reliable because it removes the guesswork.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/29062014211002.920d47625...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 19:12:14 -0700, Rusi Mody wrote: > On Sunday, June 29, 2014 4:00:01 AM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: > > > Deficiencies in existing documentation don't match up with a claim of > > its being almost non-existent. The present documention would be of help > > to most users for most things, but I suppose your examples above only go > > to show that grub isn't perfect. > > [For anyone who finds this and has an itch to explore the limbo between > non-existent and non-perfect]: > > There used to be a grub wiki: grub.enbug.org. The link is now dead. > > It can however still be found in the webarchive: > https://web.archive.org/web/20100819173835/http://grub.enbug.org/FrontPage https://web.archive.org/web/20100515182153/http://grub.enbug.org/FranklinPiat/grub_modules.manpage is the type of documentation which I think you would like to see in the present grub. Unlike most of the other man pages listed at the bottom of the page it has not made it there. Perhaps it is waiting for someone to update and maintain it. Of the cited 213 modules about 80 concern commands. These are documented in the info manual, So things aren't as bad as they look. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140629142719.gc3...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sunday, June 29, 2014 4:00:01 AM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: > On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 10:09:28 -0700, Rusi Mody wrote: > > On Saturday, June 28, 2014 9:20:02 PM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 09:00:30 +0200, Thierry de Coulon wrote: > > > > On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote: > > > > > PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost > > > > > non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-) > > > > Yes, this is one problem. There are others: > > > 20 man pages and an info manual amounts to non-existent documentation? > > I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > > What do they do? Where are they documented? > > [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] > > More generally: > > $ ls /boot/grub/i386-pc/*.mod|wc -l > > 213 > > So there are 213 modules in grub... Who/What/Where/How...??? > Deficiencies in existing documentation don't match up with a claim of > its being almost non-existent. The present documention would be of help > to most users for most things, but I suppose your examples above only go > to show that grub isn't perfect. [For anyone who finds this and has an itch to explore the limbo between non-existent and non-perfect]: There used to be a grub wiki: grub.enbug.org. The link is now dead. It can however still be found in the webarchive: https://web.archive.org/web/20100819173835/http://grub.enbug.org/FrontPage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/015810ff-0f09-4a46-959c-520801d37...@googlegroups.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On 6/28/14, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 23:14:26 -0400, slitt wrote:
>> that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined
>> kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes,
>> keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that
>> feature out.
>
> The simplest possible grub.cfg would contain
>
>menuentry "DescriptiveMenuItem {
>linux (hd0,msdos1)/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1
>initrd (hd0,msdos1)/initrd.gz
>}
>
> This assumes a machine with a single disk and the root file system
> (essentially where /sbin/init resides) on the first partition of the
> same disk.
>
> There we are, a predefined kernel/initrd/disk combination. Four lines in
> a single file. Problem solved.
>
> "No it's not!" will be the cry, "update-grub will overwite my grub.cfg."
> Correct; so use dpkg-divert on /usr/sbin/update-grub and those nasty,
> prettifying files in /etc/default/grub and /etc/grub.d will languish
> unused. The problem is now well and truly solved.
That was _awesome_!
Thank you so much Brian!
Zenaan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQd2M80mrEG=vqtckqvrq3vlb56bt5six+u2ejiwtk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 10:09:28 -0700, Rusi Mody wrote: > On Saturday, June 28, 2014 9:20:02 PM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 09:00:30 +0200, Thierry de Coulon wrote: > > > > On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote: > > > > PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost > > > > non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-) > > > Yes, this is one problem. There are others: > > > 20 man pages and an info manual amounts to non-existent documentation? > > I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). > What do they do? Where are they documented? > [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] > > More generally: > $ ls /boot/grub/i386-pc/*.mod|wc -l > 213 > > So there are 213 modules in grub... Who/What/Where/How...??? Deficiencies in existing documentation don't match up with a claim of its being almost non-existent. The present documention would be of help to most users for most things, but I suppose your examples above only go to show that grub isn't perfect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/28062014230510.d4bb04bcf...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Saturday, June 28, 2014 9:20:02 PM UTC+5:30, Brian wrote: > On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 09:00:30 +0200, Thierry de Coulon wrote: > > On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote: > > > PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost > > > non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-) > > Yes, this is one problem. There are others: > 20 man pages and an info manual amounts to non-existent documentation? I use the grub command configfile (also multiboot). What do they do? Where are they documented? [I got the tips on usage on the grub mailing list] More generally: $ ls /boot/grub/i386-pc/*.mod|wc -l 213 So there are 213 modules in grub... Who/What/Where/How...??? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/acfc5821-713d-4f5a-bfd5-09f32e146...@googlegroups.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat 28 Jun 2014 at 09:00:30 +0200, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote:
> > PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost
> > non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-)
>
>
> Yes, this is one problem. There are others:
20 man pages and an info manual amounts to non-existent documentation?
> - what documentation is existent is not easy to undestand, syntax is
> complicated. Trial and error is not good when you're playing with your boot
> manager.
A better case would be made by giving examples of hard to understand
passages and complicated syntax.
> - Grub ('s developpers) is patronizing: why make it so difficult to install
> on
> a partition? To tell you it's not reliable is one thing, to try and forbid it
> is another.
Having a "--force" option to grub-install doesn't look like an attempt
to forbid installing to a partition.
> - Assuming that UUIDs are "better" is just one way to look at it. That's
> right
> for people who add disks to a computer. Clone a disk and you'll be happy
> you used labels
UUIDs are good for everyone. You give a decent example where labels are
very useful, but they are not guaranteed to exist as most users do not
allocate one to a filesystem. Therefore, it wouldn't be very clever for
update-grub to rely on them to produce grub.cfg. Some filesystems do not
have a UUID (iso9660, for example), so --label or --file are the only
options available then.
> While I do see the power of Grub 2, I too wish we could go back to the
> efficience and simplicity of Grub 1.
Nothing to stop you:
apt-get install grub-legacy
> And I don't know if this is Grub or the distribution, but I've regularely
> experienced "MS-like" behaviour: you tell the installer to put Grub on the
> root partition, but it does install on your MBR.
grub-install /dev/sda1
didn't do as instructed? Bug number?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140628154000.ga3...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Friday 27 June 2014 17:34:54 Tom H wrote: > (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian > users in general and on this list's users in particular...) Why? What is intrinsically wriong with liking one distro and disliking another? I have always disliked Ubuntu, and see no reason to feel bad about it. I am not sniping. I just dislike it. I am far outnumbered by the enthusiasts. I have no problem with that. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201406281427.19676.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 23:14:26 -0400, slitt wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900
> Joel Rees wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...]
> > > Grub is a *boot loader*.
> >
> > Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more.
> >
> > > What do you expect it to do? Mind read?
> >
> > I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make
> > it do.
> >
>
> I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to
> my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do,
You'll miss an awfully lot of good stuff doing that. Plus the chance to
help other users.
> that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined
> kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes,
> keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that
> feature out.
The simplest possible grub.cfg would contain
menuentry "DescriptiveMenuItem {
linux (hd0,msdos1)/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1
initrd (hd0,msdos1)/initrd.gz
}
This assumes a machine with a single disk and the root file system
(essentially where /sbin/init resides) on the first partition of the
same disk.
There we are, a predefined kernel/initrd/disk combination. Four lines in
a single file. Problem solved.
"No it's not!" will be the cry, "update-grub will overwite my grub.cfg."
Correct; so use dpkg-divert on /usr/sbin/update-grub and those nasty,
prettifying files in /etc/default/grub and /etc/grub.d will languish
unused. The problem is now well and truly solved.
> In other words, grub1.
Why use abandoned software (grub legacy) when the power of grub and
Debian can be leveraged?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140628114436.gt29...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Saturday 28 June 2014 05.55:39 Rusi Mody wrote:
> PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost
> non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-)
Yes, this is one problem. There are others:
- what documentation is existent is not easy to undestand, syntax is
complicated. Trial and error is not good when you're playing with your boot
manager.
- Grub ('s developpers) is patronizing: why make it so difficult to install on
a partition? To tell you it's not reliable is one thing, to try and forbid it
is another.
- Assuming that UUIDs are "better" is just one way to look at it. That's right
for people who add disks to a computer. Clone a disk and you'll be happy
you used labels
While I do see the power of Grub 2, I too wish we could go back to the
efficience and simplicity of Grub 1.
And I don't know if this is Grub or the distribution, but I've regularely
experienced "MS-like" behaviour: you tell the installer to put Grub on the
root partition, but it does install on your MBR.
Thierry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201406280900.30062.tcou...@decoulon.ch
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:50:01 AM UTC+5:30, slitt wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900
> Joel Rees wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...]
> > > Grub is a *boot loader*.
> > Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more.
> > > What do you expect it to do? Mind read?
> > I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make
> > it do.
> I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to
> my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do,
> that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined
> kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes,
> keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that
> feature out.
> In other words, grub1.
As Brian pointed out nosplash and remove quiet on the kernel line helps.
Brings me to the more general/philosophical point:
Yes grub2 unlike grub1 puts its setup in half-a-dozen files and expects a
'compilation' model: the SHOUTING
# DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
at the top of grub.cfg and all...
Over time Ive leart to ignore (or take with some pinch of salt) that stricture:
In particular I have a 'real' mbr grub in its own partition whose grub.cfg
I hand-edit with some care (and half-knowledge!)
Then there are the grubs in each of the roots of the each of the linuxes.
These are for the linuxes to manage when upgrades happen
The first (not mounted by default) connects to the second with
entries like so:
[requires labels to be set up. Use UUIDs to taste if desired]
menuentry "Debian 64 configfile" {
search --set --label Deb64
configfile /boot/grub/grub.cfg
}
menuentry "Debian old configfile" {
search --set --label DebOld
configfile /boot/grub/grub.cfg
}
menuentry "Ubuntu 64bit configfile" {
search --set --label Ubuntu64
configfile /boot/grub/grub.cfg
}
PS. No I am not defending grub2 -- I find its documentation almost
non-existent -- just my survival strategies :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/944b22f9-5540-49e2-b628-696cf1c65...@googlegroups.com
Re: Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:33:57 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...] > > Grub is a *boot loader*. > > Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more. > > > What do you expect it to do? Mind read? > > I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make > it do. > I have a feeling that a lot of this thread got procmailed to my /dev/null, but for the person who asked what I wanted it to do, that's simple: Boot the damn computer with a menu to choose predefined kernel/initrd/disk combinations, and nothing else. And for gosh sakes, keep it in one file. If a config option is about "pretty", leave that feature out. In other words, grub1. SteveT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627231426.0422e...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Is grub perfect? (was Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, [...] > Grub is a *boot loader*. Lately (last few years), it seems to be trying to do a lot more. > What do you expect it to do? Mind read? I'd almost say that's one of the things the devs are trying to make it do. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caar43im_feyy0eyelpzhgq5j_2g3xsdkxx05bdbc2pkl1b5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 13:40:48 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:34:54 -0400 > Tom H wrote: > > > (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian > > users in general and on this list's users in particular...) > > I don't think so. I think the sniping is well deserved, and unique to > bad aspects of Ubuntu. I haven't heard one person gripe about Ubuntu's > easy and readable fonts, or Ubuntu's great hardware detection. But > when it comes to Plymouth, people gripe. It's the biggest of several > reasons I switched to Debian from Ubuntu for my daily driver. Debian's plymouth man page says that the option 'splash' is required on the kernel command line for the configured default theme to be loaded during boot. It follows from that that removing 'splash' from the command line means booting doesn't use the default theme. You switched from Ubuntu to Debian because it was easier than changing the command line option? > > There's a lot of crap on the internet about plymouth. > > > > Ubuntu defaulted to both plymouth and kms with 10.04 and because one > > of plymouth's roles is to provide a bootsplash it was blamed for the > > lack of a pure text console or for video boot problems. > > OK, here's what I know: My monitor (and please don't tell me to spend > $250 for one that "does it better") takes several seconds to autodetect > a resolution change, including the framebuffer, which Plymouth changes > several times during boot. So I miss most of the boot messages. > > And by the way, the Plymouth-bestowed framebuffer has type too small > for me to read well. All I wanted: I mean *ALL* I wanted, was to have > my boot messages scroll up the screen as ASCII text like 1999 RedHat. > Is that such a huge request? Apparently yes, when Plymouth gets > involved. If you couldn't find out how to disable plymouth, well... > I know, I know, if I understood Grub 2 I could fix all these problems. > Yeah, exactly. Grub 2 is one of a long list of softwares that fixed a > nonexistent problem and turned their product into an entangled mess of If you do not understand grub you obviously don't know what real problems it fixed. This is just a case of putting the boot in. > complexity. Gnome2->Gnome3, Gnome2->Unity, Kmail->kmail2, and > Grub->Grub2. Seems like a both boot job is in progress. > And of course, when troubleshooting Grub2, every time you > want to see results of a change, you need to reboot. What could Grub is a *boot loader*. What do you expect it to do? Mind read? > *possibly* go wrong. And don't forget, when you look on the web for > info on how to work with Grub2, you see all sorts of conflicting > information. Ill-informed information always conflicts with good information. "info grub" helps you to discriminate. > So you know what? Plymouth sux big time, especially when packaged with > Grub2 and lightdm (and who knows what systemd will throw into the mix). Your boots have got into top gear here and increased their kicking rate. What have lightdm and the poor old systemd done to deserve your ire? > If I've reflected badly on the list, well gee, I'm sorry, but as a 7 > year Ubuntu user, I have more than a passing acquaintance with > Plymouth, and I view it as 100% sabotage. 7 years? And you didn't find out how to disable it? > > There were some purely plymouth problems (for example, it initially > > wouldn't display a progress bar when a partition was being fsck'd) but > > the whole anti-plymouth thing is very much overdone. > > I think the whole pro-plymouth thing is very much overdone. Really, I > don't need decorative gegaws or framebuffers on my virtual terminals. I > need text I can read, and if there's a boot problem, text I can > troubleshoot with. Syslog. > All I want from Linux is something that works, and that I can repair > with a few tools. If I wanted pretty, I'd be an Apple guy. If I wanted > commodity pseudo-pretty in an entanged mess best maintained with trial > and error, I'd get Windows. But I want functional. When you want These boots really were made for kicking. > functional, graphical boots, framebuffer boots, enforced GUI login just > get in the way. > > Plymouth sux! Plymouth can be disabled at boot time by removing "splash" from the kernel command line. Removing "quiet" may also be a good thing. I hope this technical information helps you if you ever go back to Ubuntu. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627224846.gs29...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Fri 27 Jun 2014 at 12:34:54 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Sunday 22 June 2014 01:31:50 Steve Litt wrote: > >> > >> The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away > >> from both Plymouth and *dm. > > > > I hadn't heard of Plymouth. I just googled it and blanched. Thanks for the > > heads up, Steve! One more reason why I shall avoid *buntu. :-( > > (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian > users in general and on this list's users in particular...) I'm glad you said that. The contributions made by Ubuntu developers and users has been (and continues to be) beneficial to Linux in general and Debian in particular. > There's a lot of crap on the internet about plymouth. No doubt. I've never been tempted to use it in Debian. maybe it's time for an experiment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627175000.gr29...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:34:54 -0400 Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Lisi Reisz > wrote: > > On Sunday 22 June 2014 01:31:50 Steve Litt wrote: > >> > >> The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get > >> away from both Plymouth and *dm. > > > > I hadn't heard of Plymouth. I just googled it and blanched. Thanks > > for the heads up, Steve! One more reason why I shall avoid > > *buntu. :-( > > (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian > users in general and on this list's users in particular...) I don't think so. I think the sniping is well deserved, and unique to bad aspects of Ubuntu. I haven't heard one person gripe about Ubuntu's easy and readable fonts, or Ubuntu's great hardware detection. But when it comes to Plymouth, people gripe. It's the biggest of several reasons I switched to Debian from Ubuntu for my daily driver. > > There's a lot of crap on the internet about plymouth. > > Ubuntu defaulted to both plymouth and kms with 10.04 and because one > of plymouth's roles is to provide a bootsplash it was blamed for the > lack of a pure text console or for video boot problems. OK, here's what I know: My monitor (and please don't tell me to spend $250 for one that "does it better") takes several seconds to autodetect a resolution change, including the framebuffer, which Plymouth changes several times during boot. So I miss most of the boot messages. And by the way, the Plymouth-bestowed framebuffer has type too small for me to read well. All I wanted: I mean *ALL* I wanted, was to have my boot messages scroll up the screen as ASCII text like 1999 RedHat. Is that such a huge request? Apparently yes, when Plymouth gets involved. I know, I know, if I understood Grub 2 I could fix all these problems. Yeah, exactly. Grub 2 is one of a long list of softwares that fixed a nonexistent problem and turned their product into an entangled mess of complexity. Gnome2->Gnome3, Gnome2->Unity, Kmail->kmail2, and Grub->Grub2. And of course, when troubleshooting Grub2, every time you want to see results of a change, you need to reboot. What could *possibly* go wrong. And don't forget, when you look on the web for info on how to work with Grub2, you see all sorts of conflicting information. So you know what? Plymouth sux big time, especially when packaged with Grub2 and lightdm (and who knows what systemd will throw into the mix). If I've reflected badly on the list, well gee, I'm sorry, but as a 7 year Ubuntu user, I have more than a passing acquaintance with Plymouth, and I view it as 100% sabotage. > > There were some purely plymouth problems (for example, it initially > wouldn't display a progress bar when a partition was being fsck'd) but > the whole anti-plymouth thing is very much overdone. I think the whole pro-plymouth thing is very much overdone. Really, I don't need decorative gegaws or framebuffers on my virtual terminals. I need text I can read, and if there's a boot problem, text I can troubleshoot with. All I want from Linux is something that works, and that I can repair with a few tools. If I wanted pretty, I'd be an Apple guy. If I wanted commodity pseudo-pretty in an entanged mess best maintained with trial and error, I'd get Windows. But I want functional. When you want functional, graphical boots, framebuffer boots, enforced GUI login just get in the way. Plymouth sux! SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140627134048.6c49a12a@mydesk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 22 June 2014 01:31:50 Steve Litt wrote: >> >> The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away >> from both Plymouth and *dm. > > I hadn't heard of Plymouth. I just googled it and blanched. Thanks for the > heads up, Steve! One more reason why I shall avoid *buntu. :-( (The regular sniping at Ubuntu on this list reflects badly on Debian users in general and on this list's users in particular...) There's a lot of crap on the internet about plymouth. Ubuntu defaulted to both plymouth and kms with 10.04 and because one of plymouth's roles is to provide a bootsplash it was blamed for the lack of a pure text console or for video boot problems. There were some purely plymouth problems (for example, it initially wouldn't display a progress bar when a partition was being fsck'd) but the whole anti-plymouth thing is very much overdone. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sweafmwiv9h33erwfgks0wpiaaxwbdedebsuehvof8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:52:37 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:31:50PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit > > install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went > > into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and > > required lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, > > installed whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command > > line, no *dm needed. > > I think you should learn to use aptitude to look-into Debian's > resources. Cool. I'll do that next weekend. I've used apt-get or synaptic until now, but obviously I need finer granularity. > Here are the answer by running aptitude. > > > 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? > > It depends on what yopu mean by "LXDE package". > > If you mean "task-lxde-desktop", yes it is "depends". > > If you mean "lxde", practically yes since it is "recommends". > > > 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? > > Homepage: https://launchpad.net/lightdm > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LightDM/ ROFLMAO, I need to improve my English (which is my native language). What I *meant* to say was "does the *dependency* come from lxde, or does the *dependency* come from Debian. > > > 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? > > If you chose "lxde", you install without recommends. That is easy > with aptitude and apt-gey can do that via command line. Read the > manual pages of them. I'll be doing that next weekend. > > > The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away > > from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, > > but no way do I find it necessary. > > You can go less with bare Openbox window manager :-) If you like Openbox, you'll love my ultimate destination: dwm! But when I'm first installing a computer and getting all the functionalities working, including hundreds of home-grown shellscripts, python, perl, ruby and lua programs, I like a user interface that gives me more context. Later, when my interface is merely a way to run programs, I switch to something like Openbox or dwm. Thanks Osamu, SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140623121503.5c23d100@mydesk
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
Hi, On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:31:50PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > Hi all, > > I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit > install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went > into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required > lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, installed > whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command line, no *dm > needed. I think you should learn to use aptitude to look-into Debian's resources. Here are the answer by running aptitude. > 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? It depends on what yopu mean by "LXDE package". If you mean "task-lxde-desktop", yes it is "depends". If you mean "lxde", practically yes since it is "recommends". > 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? Homepage: https://launchpad.net/lightdm http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LightDM/ > 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? If you chose "lxde", you install without recommends. That is easy with aptitude and apt-gey can do that via command line. Read the manual pages of them. > The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away > from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, but no > way do I find it necessary. You can go less with bare Openbox window manager :-) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140623145237.GA14440@goofy
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, David Dušanić wrote: 22.06.2014, 02:31, "Steve Litt" : Hi all, I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, installed whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command line, no *dm needed. 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, but no way do I find it necessary. I am sure it is just a recommends, so install it without: *apt-get install --no-install-recommends * and in case you don't want to guess, run first $ apt-cache depends lxde (or whatever package besides lxde...) Also, *lxde* is a metapackage. Meta packages usually come with a ton of recommended packages by Debian to facilitate installs for the user, you can even switch it off in apt for all packages you want to install. ...and thereby assume responsibility for any subsequent difficulties that stem from having changed a sensible default for new users, yes. -wes
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
22.06.2014, 02:31, "Steve Litt" : > Hi all, > > I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit > install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went > into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required > lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, installed > whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command line, no *dm > needed. > > 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? > > 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? > > 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? > > The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away > from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, but no > way do I find it necessary. I am sure it is just a recommends, so install it without: *apt-get install --no-install-recommends * Also, *lxde* is a metapackage. Meta packages usually come with a ton of recommended packages by Debian to facilitate installs for the user, you can even switch it off in apt for all packages you want to install. -- David Dusanic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1595461403470...@web27m.yandex.ru
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sunday 22 June 2014 01:31:50 Steve Litt wrote: > The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away > from both Plymouth and *dm. I hadn't heard of Plymouth. I just googled it and blanched. Thanks for the heads up, Steve! One more reason why I shall avoid *buntu. :-( Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201406221101.10476.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Steve Litt wrote: > Hi all, > > I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit > install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went > into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required > lightdm was LXDE. How did you determine that relationship? > I uninstalled LXDE, Did you also uninstall lightdm? And, did you try just uninstalling lightdm alone before you tried uninstalling lxde? > [...] (I personally find xfce a bit more stable than lxde, FWIW. But I also don't particularly find lightdm a burden.) -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caar43inftawtuhzt2kcovz6rtthkddmhg-qdohjh_uertrj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, B wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:31:50 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? This is a recommend not a dependency. 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? I'd say a Debian thing. 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? Yep, uncheck it before installation (I use dselect & synaptic, so it may be easier than with other pkg managers). if you use apt-get, see the man page and, in particular, the --no-install-recommends option. -wes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1406212157550.16...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:31:50 -0400 Steve Litt wrote: > 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? This is a recommend not a dependency. > 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? I'd say a Debian thing. > 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? Yep, uncheck it before installation (I use dselect & synaptic, so it may be easier than with other pkg managers). > The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get > away from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE > desireable, but no way do I find it necessary. LXDE's not bad and lightweight, but I rejected it because of its inability to automagically re-open (almost) all programs that where in use in the last session. XFCE does this very well and even if it is not as light as LXDE, its consumption (CPU/RAM) stays acceptable. -- Why contradict a woman? It is much more simpler to wait for her to change her mind. -- Feydeau signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Does LXDE really require lightdm?
On 06/21/2014 08:31 PM, Steve Litt wrote: Hi all, I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, installed whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command line, no *dm needed. 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, but no way do I find it necessary. Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance $ aptitude show lxde lxde "recommends" lightdm. Same command for xfce4 shows that xfce4 does not. John -- --- John Bleichert-syb...@earthlink.net The heat from below can burn your eyes out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53a62615.6020...@earthlink.net
Does LXDE really require lightdm?
Hi all, I installed LXDE on a no-X, no-desktop virgin network Wheezy 64bit install with non-free software allowed, and on the next boot it went into lightdm. The only thing I could find that installed and required lightdm was LXDE. I uninstalled LXDE, installed Xfce, installed whatever bestows startx, and bang, X from the CLI command line, no *dm needed. 1) Am I correct that Debian's LXDE package installs lightdm? 2) Does that come from the LXDE project, or is it a Debian thing? 3) Is there a way to turn off LXDE's install of lightdm? The whole reason I'm switching from Xubuntu to Debian is to get away from both Plymouth and *dm. Fortunately, I find LXDE desireable, but no way do I find it necessary. Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140621203150.77df58d7@mydesk
