[ale] Installing linux on win 2000 partition

[hirsch at zapmedia.com]

I like Fulton's reasons.  I especially like that you don't need to
rerun grub after a fresh compile.  I think every newbie (myself
included, way back when) has built a new kernel and written it to
/boot/vmlinuz and rebooted, only to find that they can't boot any
more.  Grub understands file systems, so to boot /boot/vmlinuz it just
loads that file.  Lilo doesn't understand file systems, so it needs to
store the sector/track info about /boot/vmlinuz.  If you copy a new
kernel onto /boot/vmlinuz the sector/track info is wrong and you can't
boot.

This makes grub it better for emergency recovery, too.  You can go
command line and try to boot a different kernel, or put different
options on the boot line.  It even does filename completion, so you
can be sure that you are telling it to boot an existant file.

Lilo works okay, but grub works well, IMHO.

--Michael

Fulton Green writes:
 > I'm sure hirsch has some reasons, but here are some off the top of my
 > head:
 > 
 > - graphical menu
 > - run-time customizable (password-protected if one wishes)
 > - only change the (text-editable) config file when new kernel is installed
 > - can detect filesystems and find kernel image for you
 > 
 > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:48:04PM -0800, John Wells wrote:
 > > > My only advice is: If redhat can do grub, use grub. 
 > > 
 > > Out of curiousity, what advantages does grub have over
 > > lilo?
 > 
 > ---
 > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
 > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
 > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.




---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.