On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:53:07 -0500 Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2011-10-04, Neil Bothwick<n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:49:56 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> > >>> Subject line says it pretty well. Is grub2 stable, who uses it > >>> and can you post your experience on the switching process? Was > >>> it difficult? > >> I use it on my netbook, which I admittedly don't boot more than a > >> couple of times a month. It's stable, I can't comment on the > >> switching process as I used GRUB2 from the start with this > >> machine, it seemed a good time to get to grips with it. > >> > >> GRUB2 is neither complicated nor difficult, but it is different. > > I've only used it on Ubuntu, and maybe it's just Ubuntu's > > implementation -- but it was both complicated and difficult. There > > are 10X as many files, and to change anything you edit a whole set > > of configuration files and run a utility that generates _another_ > > set of configuration files. > > > > Compared to "vi /boot/grub/menu.lst; reboot", that's complicated. > > > >> If you try to think in terms of legacy GRUB, you will have more > >> problems than if you approach is as learning a new system. > > At first glace, grub2 looks like a minature Unix installation whose > > purpose is to boot a bigger Unix installation. It's got it's own > > init system and it's own set of init scripts. > > > > Could this fix the mess with /usr and /var having to be on / or a > initramfs? No that's a completely different issue. But the warped thinking that produces it is exactly the same. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
