The switch to GRUB2 - Page 2

#16 13th January 2011, 11:12 PM

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 · #17 13th January 2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detox

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.

#18 14th January 2011, 12:07 AM

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 · #19 14th January 2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detox

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?

#20 14th January 2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpmurphy

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

#21 16th January 2011, 10:39 PM

people can read HERE whats new in GRUB2-1.99

sonoran · #22 17th January 2011, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detox

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.

#23 17th January 2011, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonoran

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 · #24 17th January 2011, 03:47 AM

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.

Quote:

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/?s...gged=&limit=50

Last updated a week ago.

#25 17th January 2011, 06:09 AM

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 · #26 17th January 2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detox

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by detox

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** · #27 17th January 2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpmurphy

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 · #28 18th January 2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpmurphy

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...ub/20187#20187

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

#29 18th January 2011, 09:38 PM

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

pure_ev1l · #30 10th March 2011, 01:46 PM

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.