On 06/24/11 at 09:51pm, Brian wrote: > On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well. But I suspect > > most people will be content with the simpler configuration options > > offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub. > > That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme. > > Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it > boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I > admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy > menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in > /etc? Editing config files to have other config files edited by scripts is not ideal, from a system administration POV. Troubleshooting is difficult, and it is the sort of 'you don't need to know what happens in the box' logic I dislike. The only other place where this sort of thing happens AFAIK is mail servers, and those are notorious for being troublesome and difficult to manage! /etc/default is for daemon parameters, and it is a good idea for that. I don't wish to use it to manage my systems boot records also. > > As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file > read-only really an invitation to do the opposite? No. but the temptation just to understand a configuration file and modify it, rather than guessing what equivalent the config-file-of-the-config-file will do, is just too strong. And then we get bitten when the file is 'managed' for us. -- Liam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature