On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:02 AM Lennart Poettering <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
On Mo, 11.04.22 02:34, Chris Murphy (lists(a)colorremedies.com) wrote:
> > > OK, I'll bite.
> > >
> > > What are you missing in sd-boot, specifically?
> > >
> > > Also, why would a boot menu need a particularly fancy user experience?
> > > It's a boot manager, not a web browser.
> >
> > "barebones crappy one" is pretty strong. I'm too am interested
in
> > hearing what is so wrong with the sd-boot experience.
>
> The problem with systemd-boot is it still has an interface. I prefer
> no interface for bootloaders.
Too much for some, too little for others ;-)
The UI it has is by default turned off and you only get it if you hold
shift down or so at boot.
I mean, we do need some logic how you can pick an older kernel/edit
kernel cmdline for debugging/recovery/testing reasons. And that's
exactly what we offer, but not much more.
My comment was tongue in cheek, but yeah the "general case" in Fedora
is either no UI or boot an older kernel. Hence hidden GRUB menu by
default unless dual boot with Windows is detected (but due to
Bitlocker and TPM measured boot, the GRUB menu's Windows entry
increasingly won't work; where sd-boot has worked around this
correctly with the UEFI bootnext variable, upstream GRUB hasn't
committed to even recognizing the problem let alone a solution).
> I'm a bit frustrated that systemd-boot isn't signed, and
apparently (I
> guess) shim hard codes GRUB as the next bootloader?
That's mostly a political issue.
OK but it's true? I've got the story line correct? I'll start a
separate thread because if it's true...
--
Chris Murphy