On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:08:16 -0700 > Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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. >> >> That it's not true. It connects to whatever init system do you have >> (OpenRC, SysV, systemd, Upstart), and it has scripts to *generate* the >> config file. >> >> The thing is that GRUB2 needs to understand several filesystems to >> grab the kernel image from. It also wants to be able to use a more >> interesting resolution than 640x480. This means that it has to >> reimplement all the code for any filesystem, and all the code for >> video handling. > > Personally, I can't agree with this stance from the grub2 devs. > > It's a bootloader. It is visible for 3 seconds at boot time.
Some of us care about those 3 seconds, and the flickering of the screen when going from bootloader to init splash to X. If you don't care about those 3 seconds or the flickering, then simply don't use grub2: keep using grub-legacy or lilo. > For driving the screen it should just use whatever facilities the > firmware one layer below it provides. That's your opinion, and a respectable one. I agree not everybody will (nor should) care about a pretty boot menu. However, many of us do. I'm pretty sure when grub2 hits the 2.0 version it will be optional at ./configure time wether to use or not pretty graphics and a lot of filesystems, or only VGA and ext2, and everything in between. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
