On 7/2/20 3:42 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
GRUB2, which is a UEFI bootloader as well, is a far superior bootloader to
systemd-bloat, and it supports usecases that are supported by Anaconda (the
Fedora installer framework) that systemd-bloat doesn't, as addressed elsewhere
in this thread by myself and several others. There is no way that supporting
BIOS can be a cause for UEFI feature development being "held back". It's
nothing to do with UEFI stuff.
Again with "systemd-bloat"... I guess I don't see how something that is
responsible for booting the system, taking on more responsibility for
booting the system, could ever be argued to be bloat?
How is GRUB2 superior? I would like to see a list of pros, or
alternatively, a list of things systemd-boot doesn't do. I see plenty of
discussion in this thread about things not supporting UEFI, but not
things that only GRUB2 can do (except boot both UEFI and BIOS machines).
As for systemd-boot advantages:
1) It is simpler to configure and interact with from a running system
2) Supports seeding entropy generation before the Linux boot process
3) Can integrate easily with Gnome, other DEs
4) Has boot assessment, which could potentially integrate nicely with
the ability to boot into a read-only recovery type mode that's been
5) Has hooks for automatically booting a newly installed kernel
1) No BIOS support
3) Boot counting support doesn't seem real configurable? It only reverts
to a previous kernel.
4) Additional testing / maintenance burden until BIOS is dropped completely
5) Limited boot entry templating ability