Apparently, though unproven, at 00:46 on Wednesday 12 January 2011, Dale did opine thusly:
> Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:51:33 -0600, Dale wrote: > >> Well, I have to say that for the moment, the old grub is working fine > >> here. Just like ntp, that may change next week. I just wonder how > >> much longer it will take before they get it stabilized and expect > >> everyone to switch to it? From my understanding, they are not doing > >> much with the old grub now so it should be to far off. > > > > What is there to do with it? It's a bootloader that boots and loads, what > > more do you want? > > > > No longer updated can mean broken, but it can also mean finished. > > My point was, if something changes and it no longer works, then we may > all have to switch. According to the website, nothing much is being > done with the old grub. > > I want to wait until either the old grub doesn't work for me or the new > grub is known to be stable and has got all the kinks worked out. Even > then, I may wait until I have a issue or the old grub leaves the tree. > I seem to recall hal was stable and worked for most people too. It just > didn't work here for me. > > When is the last time a package was finished never to be changed again? > I have never seen that from any program. There is always something new, > some better way to do things or just some little tweak to improve things. grub is actually a good candidate for that. It's a boot loader, it loads a kernel, sets the instruction pointer and tells the cpu to let rip. What new features could it get? Legacy grub boots right now. It boots off most file systems that most people use and it uses the bios to get going. The point where we are all forced to switch is one of two: In many many many years time when no-one uses any of the file systems grub knows about, or in many many many years time when BIOS is nothing but a bad memory. That will all happen. In many many many years from now. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
