The switch to GRUB2

[cl333r]

Hi folks,
Are there any plans to switch to GRUB2?

I don't have issues with the current GRUB (legacy) in Fedora (14) except that it only detects window$. So unlike Fedora's (legacy) GRUB, Ubuntu & Debian squeeze use GRUB2 and probably thanks to that they both detect all OS'es I have, so I thought Fedora switching to GRUB2 would fix "Fedora's myopia" for other OSes...

[tox]

Hi folks,
Are there any plans to switch to GRUB2?

I don't have issues with the current GRUB (legacy) in Fedora (14) except that it only detects window$. So unlike Fedora's (legacy) GRUB, Ubuntu & Debian squeeze use GRUB2 and probably thanks to that they both detect all OS'es I have, so I thought Fedora switching to GRUB2 would fix "Fedora's myopia" for other OSes...

im not toally sure about this but i posyted a thread somewhere in rawhide about this, im sure the answer is in Rahuls Blog,, my guess is they'll stick to Grub-Legacy . i will try and find that thread

read this thread http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=256097 .. also click on those Links in the thread. . if im wrong about them sticking to Grub-legacy, i would guess they will choose to go with Grub2-1.99 and keep Grub-legacy in the repo like Ubuntu are doing

[cl333r]

Oh please do, cause to me as a user I'd rather have the solution that works best for me out of the box (that is, GRUB2), I hope the sticking to GRUB (legacy) isn't politically or so motivated (like Mono, but regarding to Mono I actually applaud RedHat for getting rid of Mono from the default install, sorry I don't mean to hijack the thread with Mono flames).

[tox]

iv'e posted the link above, Grub2-1.99 should be more complete than 1.98 and below

[cl333r]

Thanks a lot!

[tox]

this post here might help clear some stuff up http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/145434.html

[stoat]

Maybe this is not news, but grub2 is in the Fedora repos now going back to Fedora 12. I used it in Fedora 12 and 13. The script names (and therefore the commands to invoke them) are different than the generic GRUB 2 used by the other distros (e.g., update-grub2, grub2-mkconfig, etc.). See the readme for that. In Fedora 13 there was no update-grub by any name. I used grub2-mkconfig to regenerate the grub.cfg file. And as I recall, it wasn't able to do what cl333r wants (detect and add other Linux's), but neither did Ubuntu's in that day (I was using Ubuntu 8.10 with GRUB 2). I had to make entries in /etc/grub.d/40_custom for those. So to me, Fedora's has been a work in progress. I haven't tried 14's version.

P.S.: To try it in Fedora, I recommend deleting the legacy grub package first and save somewhere the legacy GRUB files in /boot/grub. You can go back to legacy with those. Otherwise, as I recall, GRUB 2 will be added as a choice in the old legacy GRUB menu and lead to the new menu. I didn't like that, so I started deleting grub and moving the files in /boot/grub before installing grub2. No promises or guarantees for any of this. Try it both ways and see what I mean.

[tox]

Maybe this is not news, but grub2 is in the Fedora repos now going back to Fedora 12. I used it in Fedora 12 and 13. The script names (and therefore the commands to invoke them) are different than the generic GRUB 2 used by the other distros (e.g., update-grub2, grub2-mkconfig, etc.). See the readme for that. In Fedora 13 there was no update-grub by any name. I used grub2-mkconfig to regenerate the grub.cfg file. And as I recall, it wasn't able to do what cl333r wants (detect and add other Linux's), but neither did Ubuntu's in that day (I was using Ubuntu 8.10 with GRUB 2). I had to make entries in /etc/grub.d/40_custom for those. So to me, Fedora's has been a work in progress. I haven't tried 14's version.

P.S.: To try it in Fedora, I recommend deleting the legacy grub package first and save somewhere the legacy GRUB files in /boot/grub. You can go back to legacy with those. Otherwise, as I recall, GRUB 2 will be added as a choice in the old legacy GRUB menu and lead to the new menu. I didn't like that, so I started deleting grub and moving the files in /boot/grub before installing grub2. No promises or guarantees for any of this. Try it both ways and see what I mean.

Debain6 should have 1.99 ? have you tried using that in a VM ?

[stoat]

Debian 6 (Squeeze/Sid) is currently using v1.98. Debian 5 (Lenny) is using v1.96. Lenny's GRUB 2 30_os-prober script still isn't working as advertised, but Squeeze's seems to be doing well.

[tox]

Debian 6 (Squeeze/Sid) is currently using v1.98. Debian 5 (Lenny) is using v1.96. Lenny's GRUB 2 30_os-prober script still isn't working as advertised, but Squeeze's seems to be doing well.

i would or thought it was using Grub2-1.99 or testing it. http://packages.debian.org/experimental/grub2

it might get into Debain6 beta2? cannot remember if Beta2 is out yet though or not

[cl333r]

@Stoat
In this case the _default_ behavior matters to me, not what can be done after install, because after install with enough/lots of time spent, will and knowledge one can transform the OS into whatever. So I don't really care about grub2 being in repos or wherever, because I'm not a hacker or so, hence I value a lot more the stuff that works as expected out of the box, like GRUB2 in the latest versions of Ubuntu and Squeeze.
Btw, quoting Ubuntu 8.10 for not detecting well other OSes isn't smart because 8.10 is mostly irrelevant, cause the vast majority have long switched to one of the 4 new(er) releases since then.

[stoat]

...quoting Ubuntu 8.10 for not detecting well other OSes isn't smart because 8.10 is mostly irrelevant...I think you missed my point about GRUB 2 being under very active development. Nevertheless, I do lots of things that "aren't smart". So I will yield back to you here so we all can have the benefit of more of your smart ideas.



...I don't really care about grub2 being in repos...I was only trying to help you (another of my not-so-smart ideas).

[tox]

you might wanna follow this thread, http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=256097 , Grub2 could still be made default for F15 , all of the features arent even known yet , i think you'll see more features get on the feature list in January

[fpmurphy]

In my humble opinion, Fedora should not be in any hurry to make GRUB2 the default boot loader for out-of-the-box installs.

For starters, GRUB2 is much larger in size with many more files and far more complex than GRUB legacy. There is much more room for a novice to render their system unbootable.

GRUB2 also suffers from a major design flaw IMHO - it uses a series of utilities to process the the user configurable files in /etc/default/grub and /etc/grub.d/* into grub.cfg. That is fine if you have only one OS but if you have multiple OSes, it means you either have to switch to a "main" OS to handle GRUB2 configuration modifications or somehow try and keep all the GRUB2 configuration files in synch across the OSes. With GRUB Legacy you can simply edit /boot/grub/grub.conf from any of the OSes and away you go.

Looking into the near future, the market is now rapidly moving towards UEFI. Recently there have been a whole slew of UEFI motherboards. I understand Windows 8 will mandate UEFI. UEFI implementations generally come their own sophisticated graphical boot managers which totally negate the need for GRUB. Perhaps Fedora should be concentrating on improving its UEFI support.

I am not against GRUB2. It has its role. I do think that Fedora should make GRUB2 v1.99 and later available as RPMs and provide details on how to install it as the default bootloader. I just do not think that Fedora should make it the default bootloader.

[stoat]

I agree with you, fpmurphy. For me, legacy GRUB works just fine. Heck, even the GRUB 2 documentation says that.

GRUB Legacy works great for most things, and will for some time to come. This version is called GRUB 2 because you should think twice about upgrading (because it's in development), and twice about rebooting (because it has a new configuration system). I also miss the GRUB shell in GRUB 2 (that emulator thing, I don't really like). I have to use GRUB 2 in Debian Squeeze, and I don't mind. I played with Fedora's version with 12 & 13 to see what the hype was about. But for Fedora 14, I didn't bother and don't intend to.

[tox]

cant stick to Grub-Legacy as its not getting anything New in it. the Guy at Redhat is only maintaining it and maybe putting in a few patches in it of there own. Grub2 is the way of the Future , you dont like it, your not forced to use it just because its the default.

@stoat. do they not have Grub-legacy in the repo in Squeeze anymore?

[stoat]

do they not have Grub-legacy in the repo in Squeeze anymore?It's there. As of today, v0.97-64. Before, I should have said that GRUB 2 is installed by default in Squeeze. But I don't have any problems with GRUB 2. Even though there are no strong advantages that I can appreciate with GRUB 2 (so far), I don't want to bother changing the Squeeze bootloader because 1) it's working just fine and 2) for the reason you said... it's the future. I want to keep up with everybody else.

[tox]

well we havent used Grub2-1.99 yet, unless you have used it in Ubuntu11.04 , sure it might be Bigger in size and more confusing to get used to but iyts like anything new, you'll get used to it eventually. same way with people using Gnome3, you'll get people saying they hate it when they havent even used it.. guess time will tell just what Grub version fedora uses as default. and if ya needd Help with the New version of grub just go over to the Ubuntu forum an browse there grub2 threads. i know a bit has changed in 1.99 from 1.98

[fpmurphy]

cant stick to Grub-Legacy as its not getting anything New in it. the Guy at Redhat is only maintaining it and maybe putting in a few patches in it of there own. Grub2 is the way of the Future , you dont like it, your not forced to use it just because its the default.
Why is GRUB2 the way of the future? Why not BURG for example? Why not a fork of GRUB2 that gets rid of more than half the modules that have no relevance on a GNU/Linux platform, goes back to direct editing of grub.cfg, provides graphical menu themes like BURG?

[tox]

Why is GRUB2 the way of the future? Why not BURG for example? Why not a fork of GRUB2 that gets rid of more than half the modules that have no relevance on a GNU/Linux platform, goes back to direct editing of grub.cfg, provides graphical menu themes like BURG?

iwhy? when was the last time Grub-legacy got Love from upstream? , Grub-Legacy was always an Experimental Grub-legacy, was never really finished. whereas Grub2 is just about finished and complete. Grub2 probbly has more to offer than Grub1 had. , 1 could also Argue Lilo has more advantages over Grub2 but as far as i know no one from Redhat or anyone else is maintaining Lilo bootloader in Fedora and or RHEL https://launchpad.net/burg . ok i just saw its License of Burg, even thats GPLv3. which is the same as Grub2. but as far as im aware if you dont like Grub2 your not forced to use it just because its default. if i recall even Ubuntu and Debain and i think Arch uses Grub2 and probably a few others.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

btw, if BURG was ever to be added to Fedora, would you Maintain it and stop complaining?

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

as far as i see, there isnt a lot of Development on BURG http://code.google.com/p/burg/downloads/list

[tox]

people can read HERE (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2011-01/msg00082.html) whats new in GRUB2-1.99

[sonoran]

if i recall even Ubuntu and Debain and i think Arch uses Grub2 and probably a few others.

Arch installs Grub 1.xx by default. Based on this thread, it appears Arch might go to Syslinux in the future: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=111801

The Arch devs feel Grub2 violates the KISS principle too egregiously. Of course, since there are no releases in Arch, any such change would only affect new installations.

[tox]

Arch installs Grub 1.xx by default. Based on this thread, it appears Arch might go to Syslinux in the future: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=111801

The Arch devs feel Grub2 violates the KISS principle too egregiously. Of course, since there are no releases in Arch, any such change would only affect new installations.

syslinux is already used on the Fedora Live Images. , there was a suggestion awhile ago to go with Syslinux as fedora already uses it. i havent heard or seen anyone from the Fedora/redhat devs mentioning Grub2 could Voilate KISS or FOSS? principal . i'd like to see a lilo-0.23 version packaged but no one has tried to maintain lilo

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=111801 look at post #7

if it cant boot from LVM well thats a problem since Fedora currently uses that untill they drop it

[sonoran]

I don't think Fedora has ever placed much emphasis on Simplicity,
whereas to Arch it is a governing principle.

On the other hand Arch is much more lenient when it comes to
FOSS and includes a lot of software that Fedora won't.

if it cant boot from LVM well thats a problem since Fedora currently uses that untill they drop it
True, but that is similar to the grub/ext4 issue that until recently required
a separate boot partition in Fedora.

Lilo is still available in Arch: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&arch=&repo=&q=lilo&maintainer=&last_update=&flagged=&limit=50

Last updated a week ago.

[tox]

yeah i noticed lilo was packaged in Arch also. Arch based in Canada which is not USA which would have different laws which would be also why Fedora doesnt package certain packages.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

just another thing, i dont see a lot of people complainging about Grub2 over on Ubuntu forum unless im missing something

[fpmurphy]

yeah i noticed lilo was packaged in Arch also. Arch based in Canada which is not USA which would have different laws which would be also why Fedora doesnt package certain packages.

Huh? It has nothing at all to do with a difference in laws between the US and Canada. Simply depends on different policy towards licenses by the different distributions. Some are fairly lenient and some are strict like Fedora.

---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

just another thing, i dont see a lot of people complainging about Grub2 over on Ubuntu forum unless im missing something
Ubuntu users were not given a choice or asked if they wanted GRUB2. Hint - Colin Watson of Ubuntu is very active in GRUB2 development.

Do web search for "GRUB2 problem ubuntu forums" and you will find plenty of people have issues with GRUB2.

[Finalzone]

Huh? It has nothing at all to do with a difference in laws between the US and Canada. Simply depends on different policy towards licenses by the different distributions. Some are fairly lenient and some are strict like Fedora.

Not only strict but US Patent Laws applied on packages such as ffmpeg (found on RPM Fusion outside Fedora Project) which is why Fedora cannot include them by default on their repository. US Patents are complicated with the stupid software patents issue so lets not waste time on this topic.

[RahulSundaram]

Why is GRUB2 the way of the future? Why not BURG for example? Why not a fork of GRUB2 that gets rid of more than half the modules that have no relevance on a GNU/Linux platform, goes back to direct editing of grub.cfg, provides graphical menu themes like BURG?

The same answer given here applies

http://askubuntu.com/questions/11863/why-doesnt-burg-replace-grub/20187#20187

We need sustainable projects to use by default and not one person forks.

[tox]

i think i said that in one of my posts it didnt look like it had a active Development ( BURG that is )

[pure_ev1l]

I have started using grub2 (1.9.8) with F13, it's far better, works with ext4 (main reason I changed), has more skinning, has been very good in general.

I do see grub2 as the future for Fedora, it's only a matter of time.

was in the "why change if it works" camp, but after deciding to move around my partitions without using a cd, grub2 was brilliant, mounted an iso of gparted (added it to my boot menu too) and re-ordered them, then booted directly into ext4 without a helper /boot partition

grub legacy is dead.

also I would say to anyone that wants to change over, the infomation available is terrible, and remove grub legacy completely before starting.

[tox]

I have started using grub2 (1.9.8) with F13, it's far better, works with ext4 (main reason I changed), has more skinning, has been very good in general.

I do see grub2 as the future for Fedora, it's only a matter of time.

was in the "why change if it works" camp, but after deciding to move around my partitions without using a cd, grub2 was brilliant, mounted an iso of gparted (added it to my boot menu too) and re-ordered them, then booted directly into ext4 without a helper /boot partition

grub legacy is dead.

also I would say to anyone that wants to change over, the infomation available is terrible, and remove grub legacy completely before starting.

look here http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1446042&postcount=1

[quackers]

Imho there's nothing wrong with grub2.
I currently have 7 operating systems and the grub2 installation on one of those OSes boots everything - as well as 6 live cd .iso's plus clonezilla and gparted live .iso's. I also think it's easier to use and adapt than grub legacy (although that may be because I'm more familiar with G2).
I have altered menu entries so that they say what I want them to say. I have different G2 splash images, so I know which G2 installation is in control.
It's complexity is probably a result of the fact that it does more than legacy.
Just my opinion, you understand :-)

There's loads of info on G2
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1581099
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1195275
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1287602