10 ms·
and grub is a rotting pile while systemd-boot is a simple boot entry multiplexer that rides off the kernel's capability of being run as an EFI executable, it ju
by 5G_activated 8mo ago
and grub is a rotting pile while systemd-boot is a simple boot entry multiplexer that rides off the kernel's capability of being run as an EFI executable, it just happens to live in systemd's tree. not a good example
- fragmede 8mo agoIt's a pretty good example of why people think systemd is bloated and does too much. It's a simple boot entry multiplexer. Does it need to live in systemd's tree?
- bryanlarsen 8mo agoNobody complains about a very wide variety of only vaguely related utilities being in the Gnu coreutils tree.
- Foxboron 8mo agoNor the 20 or so odd reimplementations of various filesystem drivers and LUKS encryption in the grub2 tree. But, who is counting?
- its_magic 8mo agoI'm tired of grub too. That's one of the packages on my shitlist. Currently it is broken on my system, as it has been in the past from time to time. I'm tired of the unreliability and have decided to write my own bootloader instead. It will be simple and bulletproof. I already laid the basic foundation and have the kernel loading into memory and booting. Next step is to get the memory map and pass that along. It's BIOS only for the moment; EFI support will come later, along with other architectures. (PowerPC is next.)
- fragmede 8mo agoBecause they're not all called coreutils. They've got names like sed, awk, and grep, not systemd-named, systemd-analyze, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd. I guess that's a good thing though?
- 5G_activated 8mo agoso its a marketing problem, irregardless of whether it's in systemd's tree because the systemd maintainers want to maintain it in-tree