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 :-)
Reply to: