lilo vs grub

[Jim Cornette]

Samuel Flory wrote:
> Mark Mielke wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:54:42PM -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
>>
>>> I think that LILO and GRUB should both be included in the 
>>> distribution. An important utility like a boot loader should have a 
>>> backup version. I needed lilo to restore my ability to boot when I 
>>> changed drives on the primary master.
>>> Grub failed on an intermediate stage and I would have not been able 
>>> to boot my system successfully without having lilo.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why didn't you have a backup grub partition? You didn't need lilo to 
>> boot.
>> You happened to have lilo. Note the difference. Also, grub can be put
>> stand-alone on a floppy that allows you to re-install grub without 
>> booting
>> the system up. Lilo gives you nothing of this.


In my situation, I removed the hard drive from a 166 MHz computer and 
added it to a newly bought computer. (800 MHz) There was nothing but 
WinME on the newly bought machine. This disc was the secondary drive 
from the other machine

I knew how to work with LILO from prior work with the program. I don't 
really know how to work with grub, except for editing the grub.conf file.

I think I tried grub-install qnd only got a grub prompt on /dev/hda. I 
booted up from a floppy disk and then just edited lilo.conf, ran it, 
then waited until I wiped out /dev/hda for winME and grub took over 
since then.

>>
>>
>>> If it is a better choice for the eyes free mode for users. It makes 
>>> even more sense to start including it again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it a better choice? Why does it make even more sense to start
>> including again?
> 
> 
>   Because lilo works on some configs that grub does not work on.  I 
> have  at least 2 systems that will not boot with grub.  I've encountered 
> instances with friends where grub-install to reinstall grub on to the mbr.
> 
>>
>> I find lilo to be dangerous - if you don't run lilo after moving the 
>> kernel
>> image, or installation a new kernel image, you are dead. Grub gives you
>> several different options to work from.

They didn't work from reading the info and me trying to follow the 
instructions. I'm still not sure how grub switches from one boot 
partition to the other.

A fresh install on /dev/hda resulted in grub booting from /dev/hda. A 
fresh install on /dev/hdb made grub work from /dev/hdb again.

>>
> 
>   Actually your system will boot just fine if the filesystem hasn't 
> reclaimed the space used by the file;-)  Person I like the fact that I 
> have to run lilo.  It's a great sanity check.  With grub you really 
> can't be sure your system will be able to reboot.


I agree, when you run lilo you know that what you ran and lilo verified 
is what was entered into the loader.

> 
> 
>> I see no reason why lilo should continue to be developed, or why it 
>> should
>> be re-included into fedora or redhat.

What harm is it to give people choices as to what programs or utilities 
they should run? It is better to allow more choices, instead of cutting 
out tools available.

>> Cheers,
>> mark
>>
> 
> 


-- 
We don't need no indirection		We don't need no compilation
We don't need no flow control		We don't need no load control
No data typing or declarations		No link edit for external bindings
Hey! did you leave the lists alone?	Hey! did you leave that source alone?
Chorus:					(Chorus)
	Oh No. It's just a pure LISP function call.

We don't need no side-effecting		We don't need no allocation
We don't need no flow control		We don't need no special-nodes
No global variables for execution	No dark bit-flipping for debugging
Hey! did you leave the args alone?	Hey! did you leave those bits alone?
(Chorus)				(Chorus)
		-- "Another Glitch in the Call", a la Pink Floyd