[Bug 154763] Grub is inadequate without Lilo for backup

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 22:25 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 22:03, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> > Of course, in all this, keep your mind open.  You might find that by
> > pointing out a specific, definable short coming of grub the developers
> > may choose to get grub up-to-snuff rather than include lilo.
> 
> Been there, done that.  As have many others on this list and elsewhere. 
> Number one is lack of reliability, followed by lack of predictability
> which is largely a consequence of lack of documentation.
> 
> Jeff thinks that Fedora is not supposed to be reliable, and posits
> change for change's sake as Fedora's raison d'etre.  If Redhat would
> confirm that we can all stop wasting our time.  Until then, we'll assume
> that reliability is a Fedora/RHEL goal, whether stated or not.
> 
> Experienced programmers and sysadmins report that we need Lilo for
> reliable systems.  We've advanced three valid reasons for keeping Lilo
> for serious users.  The flame kids have countered with "Works for me",
> "Redhat must have reasons that it's not telling us", and Godwins Law.

That's all well and good Mike, but I notice that while you fell happy to
comment on a little paragraph at the bottom of my long comment, you
choose to ignore that fact that so far (as far as I can see) you haven't
spelt out a single specific example of how lilo is better than grub, or
something that grub gets wrong.

This is what this thread is really about, and until you can give the
developers something concrete with which to work all the other comments
about this aren't going to amount to squat.


R.