On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 00:26 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > They're both boot loaders. Of course they're similar. But they have > some serious differences. Serious enough that many folks, such as > myself, choose to stick with LILO. If I had to come up with one word to > describe today's LILO users, it would probably be "purists". We want a > reliable boot loader that is as basic as can be and accomplish the > simple, single job of loading the OS kernel.
If you want a multi-boot including FreeBSD, there might be the need to use GRUB2. That's because I switched back from GRUB legacy to GRUB2. OTOH I can boot FreeBSD using the chainloader, so I guess I could use any other bootloader too. I'm not an expert, but many experts claim that GRUB is crap and better code is Syslinux. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1369029177.988.29.camel@archlinux
