lilo vs grub

George Farris farrisg at mala.bc.ca
Tue Oct 21 16:29:32 UTC 2003


Both these boot loaders are poor.  What they should really do is scan
the available boot blocks and allow one to boot from one of those
choices.  As it stands if one installs grub in a system with two drives
and then you pull the drive without grub, you end up at a grub prompt.  

Both grub and lilo should **always** fall back to a safe condition.

On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:56, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:20:28PM -0400, Mark Hoover wrote:
> > But how can we claim to be in favor of software choice when at the basic 
> > level of the bootloader we can't even let there be a choice for those 
> > who don't want to use one or the other.
> 
> Your argument would have substance, if, for example, lilo was a competitive
> alternative that was actively maintained (KDE vs GNOME for example).
> 
> I think the competitive alternative is a card case to prove, and the
> actively maintained is impossible to prove.
> 
> Feel free to correct me... Perhaps you will take ownership of lilo, and
> ensure that it is actively maintained? Remember, the open source community
> isn't just about users. It is quite significantly about contributors.
> Without contributors, the users have nobody to blame about a product becoming
> obsolete.
> 
> mark
-- 
George Farris	farrisg at mala.bc.ca
Malaspina University-College - Cowichan Campus





More information about the test mailing list