Time to change to grub2?

[Neal ManBear]

Yes, i have read many posts in this forum about this issue, thats why i oponed this post.

     
So you concluded that if people had problems with grub2, it was because of legacy grub? Sorry, but your logic escapes me. Grub2's problems are caused by grub2.     

And i dont think that, as you say, You should always take care to install any subsequent OS's bootloader to its own root partition. Failure to do so will make PCLinuxOS unbootable, no if you install an OS whith the same Grub Legacy that pclos uses.

     
You may think whatever you wish, but I was not speaking out of my arse. I bloody well tested it.     

[DeBaas]

@parnote @patomas
The distro indeed was based on the unspeakable 3U.

[ElCuervo]

Fedora 16 will use grub 2 and it is question of time before opensuse and other major RPM distro will change to it.

I agree. We can all have our opinions about this, but it doesn't change the facts any more than it did with KDE3.5, Gnome 2, or 32 bit operating systems. Yes, it's just a matter of time, and those who choose to avoid it can and will, and those who don't will adapt to it and move on.

[parnote]

The whole issue may be moot anyways, since legacy Grub is reported to NOT be compatible with UEFI. However, Grub2 and Lilo both are, with a little work.

parnote

[DeBaas]

A part from an article on:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/motherboards/a/UEFI.htm

The other major benefit to the UEFI is the ability to easily launch into multiple operating systems without a need of a bootloader such as LILO or GRUB. Instead, the UEFI can automatically select the appropriate partition with the operating system and load from it. In order for this to be achieved though, both the hardware and the software must have the appropriate support for the UEFI specification. This actually already exists in Apple's computer systems that use Boot Camp to have either Mac OS X and Windows load on the same computer.

[Dragynn]

. This actually already exists in Apple's computer systems that use Boot Camp to have either Mac OS X and Windows load on the same computer.

True story: The young guy from India who runs the little convenience down the street has a newer Mac laptop, and it apparently has this feature as he excitedly told me one day a while back while chatting about computers, and he was in the process of loading Windoze on to it.

Day before yesterday I went in and he was busily hunched over his computer so I said hello and went to pick out my items (beer and beef jerky ), so no one else is in the store so it's pretty quiet, and as I'm shopping I hear this:

"...(angry mumble slowly getting louder)...dammit...what the?... OMG YOU ARE THE FINDER, WHY WILL YOU NOT FIND THINGS?.."

[sound of an angry hard-reboot]
[sound of Windows log-in]
[sound of fingers furiously tapping keys]

"...(mumble, mumble)...OMG, WTH?....(calls out to me now)...Hey, what does it means "a fatal exception has occurred"?

I about died laughing on the spot.

[kc1di]

Here is UEFI's FAQ pages looks promising enough if That one well know Distro does not dominate it 
http://www.uefi.org/about/

[patomas]

And i dont think that, as you say, You should always take care to install any subsequent OS's bootloader to its own root partition. Failure to do so will make PCLinuxOS unbootable, no if you install an OS whith the same Grub Legacy that pclos uses.

   

You may think whatever you wish, but I was not speaking out of my arse. I bloody well tested it.    

You are right! If you install a new OS not on its own root partition but by default, the grub of this new OS will overwrite the MBR installing its own Grub on it, and you wont be able to boot pclos from this new grub untill you add an entry to pclos in the Menu.Ist of the new OS.

[Vorteggs]

Instead, the UEFI can automatically select the appropriate partition with the operating system and load from it.

Hmm...
So it will be harder to find out why the automatics doesn't behave?

Now it is so simple to me wit GRUB legacy - just a matter of copying/pasting boot stancas from one menu.lst to another as old-polack said.

[Neal ManBear]

And i dont think that, as you say, You should always take care to install any subsequent OS's bootloader to its own root partition. Failure to do so will make PCLinuxOS unbootable, no if you install an OS whith the same Grub Legacy that pclos uses.

   

You may think whatever you wish, but I was not speaking out of my arse. I bloody well tested it.    

You are right!

     
Yes, or I would have said nothing. Like I said, I do not speak out of my arse. I'm not some inexperienced new user that you can accuse of knowing nothing.     

If you install a new OS not on its own root partition but by default, the grub of this new OS will overwrite the MBR installing its own Grub on it, and you wont be able to boot pclos from this new grub untill you add an entry to pclos in the Menu.Ist of the new OS.

     
Just because you can overwrite the MBR doesn't mean that you should.     
It is best to install the new OS's bootloader to its root partition and then add a boot stanza for it to the PCLinuxOS /boot/grub/menu.list. I have a multi-boot system. Each has its bootloader installed to its own root partition, except for my main install, which is in the MBR. I add to/take away from the menu.list as needed.     

[patomas]

Instead, the UEFI can automatically select the appropriate partition with the operating system and load from it.

Hmm...
So it will be harder to find out why the automatics doesn't behave?

Now it is so simple to me wit GRUB legacy - just a matter of copying/pasting boot stancas from one menu.lst to another as old-polack said.

I did what old-polack (he helped me all over the process) and works fine. Is simple and secure. No more to worry if by accident another distro overwrite the MBR. Thanks old-polack!!!

[Vorteggs]

The more complicated is a routine the more the chances of a fault.

Choosing a boot device is very simple algorithm so no need of complicated automatics I think.

[patomas]

  

Yes, or I would have said nothing. Like I said, I do not speak out of my arse. I'm not some inexperienced new user that you can accuse of knowing nothing.

 

I assumed from the beggining that you are not some inexperienced new user (wich i think i am myself) and i dont think i acussed you of anything. I was just exposing my point of view about something anf i found out that in one particular aspect i was wrong and you were right.

Just because you can overwrite the MBR doesn't mean that you should. It is best to install the new OS's bootloader to its root partition and then add a boot stanza for it to the PCLinuxOS /boot/grub/menu.list. I have a multi-boot system. Each has its bootloader installed to its own root partition, except for my main install, which is in the MBR. I add to/take away from the menu.list as needed.

I agree with you 100%.

[hal8000]

Grub2  (in my experience) is bloated, clumbersome and just not ready.

I've multi-booted many systems including FreeBSD and OSX and every time
use grub legacy to control the boot.

Some distributions allow you not to install a bootloader, then its just an easy job
to either chainloading or creating a new  stanza to boot the new distro.

Grub2 always makes a mess of any system that uses grub legacy and fails to pick
up freeBSD which is another reason I choose grub legacy.

Grub legacy installs that use splash.xpm.gz can only display boot splash in 640x480 and ugly 256
colours. Use grub with gfxboot and you can boot in any resolution you like even with 24bit colour.
You can change the grub font faces,  size, colour position etc.

Apart from being over bloated grub2 offers very little that grub legacy+gfxboot cannot do.
There is now burg which is an improvement and offers icons, though again this could be acheieved
in gfxboot by "pasting" icons onto a splash screen and careful control of font size.

[AndrzejL]

err in one word NO

+1. Legacy grub works fine. Thanks but no thanks.