From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RxPbz-0003t2-Eu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:08:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80F84E0BB8; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789FAE0BA7 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eaak14 with SMTP id k14so136544eaa.40 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:57:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ir8UKwxJ3FodnOY0/XwiqiktvN0VtCu0N85aVcLHk1E=; b=oTKgdaq5vn9gZhIfBGFY3TJDtwRf4h/WhhxhscW/JtNC4+thS0B11H4s7lVM6iuYUA kHe9GcPigyk6+yBKNJcr+9vqenwO8b7nzes/sRWlBiig8NdquEfSF0OVN9KdcJji9+up 7X6RgLZVzaJmxCNjAXTLsH6v589taHMOwgrMg= Received: by 10.14.200.132 with SMTP id z4mr7450121een.122.1329253025705; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.104] (dslb-084-061-164-175.pools.arcor-ip.net. [84.61.164.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y12sm2682816eeb.11.2012.02.14.12.57.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:57:04 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2 From: LK In-Reply-To: <4F3AC72F.2090500@trausch.us> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:57:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <475D2105-FA04-4A95-9AEB-328512F8985E@gmail.com> References: <4F3A9FAA.9000504@binarywings.net> <4F3AA6C7.4050501@trausch.us> <4FEAA3B3-0A32-4347-9441-C0E3FE3E1F38@gmail.com> <4F3AB616.4050506@alyf.net> <4F3AC72F.2090500@trausch.us> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Archives-Salt: 2fd72fd3-7364-4a49-beb0-e2d40dd533ed X-Archives-Hash: 8eb585fbebea30b8b557fbd4c14acb7b On 120214, at 21:42, mike@trausch.us wrote: > On 02/14/2012 02:29 PM, Andrea Conti wrote: >> Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is >> better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. >>=20 >> I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a >> configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by >> running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of = m4 >> and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... >=20 > Well, it's a good thing that GRUB 2 is just a bootloader, then. :-) > And again, nobody needs the tools to configure it; they are simply > standardized from what various distributions developed for GRUB = Legacy, > but was incompatible from one distribution to the next. >=20 >> I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as >> vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is >> totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. >=20 > How about "It Just Works". Seriously. >=20 > It is a better designed system with most of its functionality pushed > into modules. It is portable to more than just x86, as I've already > mentioned before, and during _that_ whole process, the quality of the > code increased significantly. It is more robust, and from the POV of = a > user, maintainer, or packager it is *much* simpler. >=20 > When supporting GRUB Legacy, it's almost a necessity to know which > distribution the user installed it with. Why? Because all of them = are > different! That is no longer the case with GRUB 2. >=20 > I'm not sure how that translates to being more complex. If you are > averse to change, just say so and be done with it. Is it different? > Oh, yes, absolutely. It couldn't be better if it were the same, could > it? ;-) First, why do we need that much code? If we have less then we dont have to divide into modules. Second, it does not translate into complex but rather into too much, and whenever it is too much than needed, its hard to understand and THUS complex. Not the other way. >=20 >=20 > A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic > than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. > --- Carveth Read, =93Logic=94 >=20