GRUB 2 now default for new installations

Markus Hitter mah at
Thu Jun 11 07:20:12 UTC 2009

Am 10.06.2009 um 21:44 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:

> ke, 2009-06-10 kello 15:21 -0400, John Moser kirjoitti:
>> Every argument for putting Grub or the kernel on a separate partition
>> has been based around the idea that these files are somehow more
>> important than, say, /bin/sh
> Putting the kernel (i.e., /boot) on a separate partition is often
> mandated by the BIOS not being able to read all of a large hard  
> disk. I
> have a motherboard from 2008 that has that problem, so it's not  
> ancient
> history, either.

Additionally, if you have more than one installation of Ubuntu on the  
same platter, you really want to share /boot with both installations.

Not doing so means two /boot's, while you can address only one of  
those in the master boot record. As /boot also contains kernels, you  
end up booting grub from one partition and the kernel from the other  
partition. Kernel install scripts can't deal with such a situation,  
you end up sync'ing those two /boots manually after each update of  
one of the kernels.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list