grub2 = beta?
g.lip at gmx.com
Fri Dec 11 04:08:23 UTC 2009
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 10 December 2009, Ric Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 00:23 -0800, Knapp wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Alvin <info at alvin.be> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 09 December 2009 21:18:29 Jerry Lapham wrote:
>>>>> Just got a grub2 update for karmic which seems to indicate it's a
>>>>> beta. Is it? If so, why did Kubuntu 9.10 make it the default?
>>>> - yes, it is beta. It's not only the default in kubuntu, but in
>>>> ubuntu-server as well!
>>>> - Honestly, I have no idea. I have never experienced more boot issues
>>>> in 7 years of Linux.
>>>> I like the fact that the GNU people are giving us a better boot loader,
>>>> but I don't mind waiting for more stability.
>>>> In this case (Ubuntu), it was pure hubris to change the boot loader to
>>>> a beta version AND pushed upstart at the same time.
>>> Kubuntu and it would seem Ubuntu have made this mistake over and over
>>> again. We now have a bunch of software that has been shoved down our
>>> mouths that is beta or beta quality. We have Dolphine, KDE4.0, GRUB2,
>>> PulseAudio, the networking stuff. When are they going to learn that
>>> this distro is for newbies and for pros that want it to just work. We
>>> are not beta testers.
>> That's why I bailed out of Fedora, over the very same issues. Of course
>> they state quite openly that Fedora is a beta test bed and nothing much
>> else. Alas poor Hardy, I remember you being stable as a rock and quite
>> impressed with the entire (k)Ubuntu experience. Alas... Ric
> If by Hardy, you mean 6.06 LTS, yes, its bulletproof. I have an install of
> 8.04 LTS that seems equally stable although I haven't beaten on it for nearly
> so long.
Normally, I don't comment on preferences, (Gnome vs KDE, synaptic vs
aptitude, firefox vs opera, etc) but I think I shall add my 2 cents on
grub. I have an 'obsession' with making sure my OS boots and I have
therefore had some 'experimentations' with both grub-legacy and grub2.
making custom boot cd's, usb sticks, and setting just a partition for
booting, using the old lilo, grub-legacy and grub2. Had also tried
super-grub, gag and one more which fails my memory.
Grub2 is far superior on many counts; for one, it is modular, adding
features which do not require a whole reengineering of the whole grub
system making it more robust and more powerful and flexible. Grub-legacy
has not been maintained for many years, causing others to come up with
super-grub, etc (yet I find working with grub-legacy more instructive
than using super-grub). I find many things - and one which is not so
good - in grub2 (even in beta) much better than grub-legacy from a user
point - really, who wants to know how the boot works, just make sure it
boots - .
My 'vote' is for grub2, overwhelmingly.
Oh, I still use, in addition to Karmic, my trusty Hardy, KDE 3.5.10 for
some of the reasons written on the messages on this thread, but I had
long ago converted my Hardy grub to grub2.
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm
frightened of the old ones.
More information about the kubuntu-users