You can't edit /etc/default/grub to customize how grub-mkconfig generates
grub.cfg. Mint probably has update-grub like Ubuntu does which just allows
you to use that command instead of grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
On Feb 14, 2012 2:55 PM, "LK" <linuxrocksrul...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote:
> >> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
> >> say how?
> > Remove or comment out any "splashimage" directives from the config file.
> I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and
> splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere ("branding")
> reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every
> product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the
> iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions)
>
> > Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is
> > better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else.
> >
> > I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a
> > configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by
> > running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4
> > and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago...
> >
> > I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as
> > vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is
> > totally unreasonable and impossible to justify.
>
> I agree to you in a big part. Thanks.
>
> Big companies like Microsoft or Apple are doing a thing i simply call
> "Similarisation of features for new/unknowledged users", which always
> goes in the reverse direction on long-term. Sample situation: Microsoft
> Repair CD: You can select to partition your disk appropiate to how the
> assistant will like it. You are being hid from all the details, as you wont
> understand them any way.
> Once you try to do something special, you get problems bigger than
> without this 'improvement for new ones'. This is because less work is
> being done to the detailed way of doing it, and more to the simple,
> which is made to just do one or two things.
> Essence: The system is hidden, you only see actions what you can
> do (update-grub in our case) instead of the system. This is obviously
> wrong because the system, the back-end, takes more than
> the front-end. Now the front-end should represent the back-end in a
> human readable form and not simplify to fit the least knowledged.
>
> BUT, i guess (from what ive heard) grub2 is fine with editing it by
> hand. And the command does really only assist in the simpliest
> matter, only combines all actions you'd have to take yourself.
> Thanks for the clearance.
>
> (If you want to criticise the above big block of text, I always fail to
> express myself well.)
>
