Re: syslinux vs grub
Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> first, because it has better hardware compatibility, grub doesn't boot
>> on a small subset of crappy/old/strange/weird machines where isolinux is
>> able to boot. this might or might not be true for your use case.
> If grub does not boot on your machine then you probably should report
> it as a bug.
i don't have such old machines, grub works on all of mine. however, if
you look at the reports people with very old and strange hardware send
in, you'll see that it's not working as well as it does with mroe
> It can boot from hdd and CD using both the real mode BIOS interface
> and EFI, and it should support PXE as well but I haven't tried that. I
> have no idea what is htd or if64.
hdt is a harwarde inspection and detection tool, if64 is a plugin that
let will set the defaults dynamically based on if the computer supports
64bit extensions or not.
>> and third, its codebase is much better and its upstream author much more
> If you mean grub legacy (something like 0.97 currently) there is no
> upstream for that. However, grub2 (currently something like 1.97 in
> debian) is actively developed.
have you ever reported bugs to grub and syslinux? for the latter, mine
got fixed within a matter of days. the grub ones got eventually closed
(without fix, a la gnome style).
however.. anyone please use grub if it suits you more, that's why
there's the --bootloader switch. the default, however, will be, as
debian chooses for (i take it) the same reasons, keeping syslinux as the
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist