Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
Tom H put forth on 5/28/2010 10:55 PM:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Stan Hoeppner <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Roger Leigh put forth on 5/28/2010 11:39 AM:
>>> For the most part, grub is a vast
>>> improvement over LILO, and except for the odd corner cases which
>>> grub doesn't cover,
>> In what way is it a vast improvement over LILO? I've never had a problem with
>> LILO. It's always "just worked", which is what a bootloader should do. So
>> how exactly would grub be a better choice for me?
> The reverse argument can be made too. Both grub1 and grub2 just work.
> Unless you are continually installing dual- and triple-boot this or
> that, you are not going to be changing you config continually no
> matter what bootloader you use and you will therefore not be
> interacting with it that much. So, except for Stephen P's case, what's
> the big deal?
I frequently roll new kernels from kernel.org source using the Debian
installation method, once every couple of months. I'm very comfortable with
using LILO for this. I've pretty much zero experience with Grub (any
version). If something goes wrong converting from LILO to Grub2, I'm screwed.
And I'll probably have an unwanted and unneeded learning curve while
continuing my current practice of rolling kernels frequently.
Please don't debate the merits of customs kernels. I have very valid reasons
for doing so. Let's focus on why or why not Grub2 will work for my needs, and
not hose my systems either during the migration from LILO to Grub2, or
installing custom kernels after the fact.