Re: Why Grub? Must I Switch?

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@mesanetworks.net>]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:01:26PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> Revisiting old posts...
> 
> on Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 01:13:31PM -0700, Paul E Condon (pecondon@mesanetworks.net) wrote:
> 
> [GRUB/LILO pimpfest deleted...]
> 
> 
> > Just my opinion:
> > Grub is much more featureful than lilo. It has a scripting language
> > that can be used during boot to get you out of any trouble that you
> > may have gotten into by reworking your kernel config. But to use it,
> > you have to remember how it works. To remember you have to have
> > learned it features.  When I realized this I reverted to lilo. It does
> > the job for me. I truly believe grub is better, but I'm not ever going
> > to learn and _remember_ how to use it. 
> 
> The bonus of GRUB here is that not only can you get an interactive shell
> at boot, but there's a modicum of contextual support, at least insofar
> as tab-completion is supported.  You can also type 'help' for a list of
> commands, and 'help <keyword>' for a short but usable description of
> commands.
> 
> It's somewhat similar to DOS, in this regard really.  Though lacking
> some of the file management utilties.
> 
> 
> Peace.
> 

Yes, grub is good. But I'm 72 and have a bunch of things to do in the time
I have left here. Learning to use grub isn't one of them, and I don't think
a simple user should struggle with it if they already have a functional 
command of lilo. 

Recent progress in live CD versions of Debian make me wonder as to grub's
usefulness for error recovery. A live CD is vastly more powerful, IMHO.

But if one is a newbie with zero knowledge of how boot loading works, it 
might make sense to study grub, maybe.


-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@mesanetworks.net