4 ms·

Have they replaced it with grub-rs yet? On a more serious note, grub is ancient bloatware, it is way overcomplicated for what it does, it's asking to be replac

Have they replaced it with grub-rs yet? On a more serious note, grub is ancient bloatware, it is way overcomplicated for what it does, it's asking to be replaced by systemd-boot distro-wide. Look at Apple and Microsoft's bootloaders, they are dead simple and have barely changed in 20 years, it makes you wonder how the hell grub was even conceived. It has config files for config files. grub tries to do the kitchen sink. But we live in a UEFI world now. Boot is simple. None of that is necessary anymore.

plagiarist 7mo ago
I'd like a better boot manager but I sure as hell do not want systemd cancer to spread any further. Especially not after Poettering has started a remote attestation company.
- longislandguido 7mo ago
  systemd-boot is only similar to systemd in name; it started as another project and was renamed.
  - mirashii 7mo ago
    It’s been merged into the systemd project, so one must assume that the systemd maintainers have some level of influence over it.
    - longislandguido 7mo ago
      Remind me why I'm supposed to care who the maintainer is for a piece of software that runs for a few seconds then gets tf out of the way.
      - logicchains 7mo ago
        Because they're going to try to use it to make it impossible for you to run an operating system that isn't spyware.
        fluffybucktsnek 7mo ago
        Now that's rich. Are you indirectly telling us that Arch Linux and NixOS are spyware?
        ingohelpinger 7mo ago
        Ubuntu isn’t too big to target, if anything, its dominance makes it the obvious target. When you look at the trajectory over the years and some of Canonical’s decisions, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow. Major distros like Ubuntu and Fedora didn’t scale globally without taking big tech money and money rarely comes with no strings attached. At some point, players like Microsoft are going to expect a return on that investment.
        ethin 7mo ago
        Can you actually definitively prove this, or is this just more fearmongering from the anti-systemd crowd that I at least don't at all take seriously?
        dirasieb 7mo ago
        it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux? at some point you people need to stop pretending it’s all just a slippery “slope fallacy” every single time they push for more control
        NekkoDroid 7mo ago
        > it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux? Considering it changes nothing on what they actually work on on systemd I would give this a yes. Every time I hear "they will do this or that" it just never really happened. So far it feels more like "the boy who cried wolf" than "slippery slope" to me. But maybe I am missing something? A lot of the devs have always here and there added features for secure/measured boot and image based OSes and things that make them more usable to daily drive (hermetic /usr/, UKIs, sysext, portable services, mkosi, DDIs, ...). A lot of the things make image based systems more modifiable/user accessible without compromising on the general security aspect. If they really wanted to lock in Linux users to a single blessed image from them they would have had a better chance when Lennart was working at Microsoft (which generally is the only preinstalled CA) instead of starting a "competing" company (they are targeting a different niche from what I understand).
      - dirasieb 7mo ago
        because it “runs for a few seconds” until the maintainers decide it should run for a few minutes, see init for an example
      - hulitu 7mo ago
        Famous last words. To answer your question: because you will have to deal with the aftermath.
- sourcegrift 7mo ago
  Wow, when did he leave microsoft? (I know some might be asking when he joined lol)
  - plagiarist 7mo ago
    Not all that long ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572
drooopy 7mo ago
Bring back Lilo!
- gorgoiler 7mo ago
  Personally, I miss blessing my iBook with “holy penguin pee”: https://github.com/jeffv03/yaboot/blob/master/ybin/ybin#L902 https://github.com/jeffv03/yaboot/blob/master/ybin/ybin#L902
- hulitu 7mo ago
  lilo was great. Elilo was not maintained so now the only usable option is refind. Grub trying to be a smart ass and numbering things with its own nomenclature is ... funny.
pixl97 7mo ago
> it makes you wonder how the hell grub was even conceived I'm wondering how much was interop with trying to boot multiple operating systems off the same disk?
- justsomehnguy 7mo ago
  In the last 5 years I had too many times when I need to spend literally hours to properly boot the same OS it was installed with. Booting the Win*-like is just a matter of chain loading for CSM or straight pointing to bootmgr.efi on UEFI systems.
unixhero 7mo ago
Grub does suck yes. The only boot loader on uefi I like is refind https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/ https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/
yjftsjthsd-h 7mo ago
> Look at Apple and Microsoft's bootloaders, they are dead simple and have barely changed in 20 years, it makes you wonder how the hell grub was even conceived. It has config files for config files. It's the GRand Unified Bootloader. The point was to have a single thing that could boot any configuration of any operating system on any platform. It can boot Ubuntu on ARM. It can boot Solaris on SPARC. It can boot Windows on x86_64. Encrypted, RAIDed, from your choice of firmware, on whatever filesystem(s) are around, netboot, reboot, multiboot, you name it, GRUB can do it. And to some degree yes that means it has to be more complicated than eg. BOOTMGR that's only meant to launch one OS and really only wants to do it one way. That said... I do think GRUB 2 really piled on more complexity than was needed; GRUB 0.99 was IMHO essentially the same features but way easier to configure. But even there, I get the appeal of scripting everything to be automagical. I disapprove, but I get it.

plagiarist 7mo ago

I'd like a better boot manager but I sure as hell do not want systemd cancer to spread any further. Especially not after Poettering has started a remote attestation company.

longislandguido 7mo ago
systemd-boot is only similar to systemd in name; it started as another project and was renamed.
- mirashii 7mo ago
  It’s been merged into the systemd project, so one must assume that the systemd maintainers have some level of influence over it.
  - longislandguido 7mo ago
    Remind me why I'm supposed to care who the maintainer is for a piece of software that runs for a few seconds then gets tf out of the way.
    - logicchains 7mo ago
      Because they're going to try to use it to make it impossible for you to run an operating system that isn't spyware.
      - fluffybucktsnek 7mo ago
        Now that's rich. Are you indirectly telling us that Arch Linux and NixOS are spyware?
        ingohelpinger 7mo ago
        Ubuntu isn’t too big to target, if anything, its dominance makes it the obvious target. When you look at the trajectory over the years and some of Canonical’s decisions, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow. Major distros like Ubuntu and Fedora didn’t scale globally without taking big tech money and money rarely comes with no strings attached. At some point, players like Microsoft are going to expect a return on that investment.
      - ethin 7mo ago
        Can you actually definitively prove this, or is this just more fearmongering from the anti-systemd crowd that I at least don't at all take seriously?
        dirasieb 7mo ago
        it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux? at some point you people need to stop pretending it’s all just a slippery “slope fallacy” every single time they push for more control
        NekkoDroid 7mo ago
        > it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux? Considering it changes nothing on what they actually work on on systemd I would give this a yes. Every time I hear "they will do this or that" it just never really happened. So far it feels more like "the boy who cried wolf" than "slippery slope" to me. But maybe I am missing something? A lot of the devs have always here and there added features for secure/measured boot and image based OSes and things that make them more usable to daily drive (hermetic /usr/, UKIs, sysext, portable services, mkosi, DDIs, ...). A lot of the things make image based systems more modifiable/user accessible without compromising on the general security aspect. If they really wanted to lock in Linux users to a single blessed image from them they would have had a better chance when Lennart was working at Microsoft (which generally is the only preinstalled CA) instead of starting a "competing" company (they are targeting a different niche from what I understand).
    - dirasieb 7mo ago
      because it “runs for a few seconds” until the maintainers decide it should run for a few minutes, see init for an example
    - hulitu 7mo ago
      Famous last words. To answer your question: because you will have to deal with the aftermath.
sourcegrift 7mo ago
Wow, when did he leave microsoft? (I know some might be asking when he joined lol)
- plagiarist 7mo ago
  Not all that long ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572

drooopy 7mo ago

Bring back Lilo!

gorgoiler 7mo ago
Personally, I miss blessing my iBook with “holy penguin pee”: https://github.com/jeffv03/yaboot/blob/master/ybin/ybin#L902 https://github.com/jeffv03/yaboot/blob/master/ybin/ybin#L902
hulitu 7mo ago
lilo was great. Elilo was not maintained so now the only usable option is refind. Grub trying to be a smart ass and numbering things with its own nomenclature is ... funny.

pixl97 7mo ago

> it makes you wonder how the hell grub was even conceived I'm wondering how much was interop with trying to boot multiple operating systems off the same disk?

justsomehnguy 7mo ago
In the last 5 years I had too many times when I need to spend literally hours to properly boot the same OS it was installed with. Booting the Win*-like is just a matter of chain loading for CSM or straight pointing to bootmgr.efi on UEFI systems.

unixhero 7mo ago

Grub does suck yes. The only boot loader on uefi I like is refind https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/ https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/

yjftsjthsd-h 7mo ago

> Look at Apple and Microsoft's bootloaders, they are dead simple and have barely changed in 20 years, it makes you wonder how the hell grub was even conceived. It has config files for config files. It's the GRand Unified Bootloader. The point was to have a single thing that could boot any configuration of any operating system on any platform. It can boot Ubuntu on ARM. It can boot Solaris on SPARC. It can boot Windows on x86_64. Encrypted, RAIDed, from your choice of firmware, on whatever filesystem(s) are around, netboot, reboot, multiboot, you name it, GRUB can do it. And to some degree yes that means it has to be more complicated than eg. BOOTMGR that's only meant to launch one OS and really only wants to do it one way. That said... I do think GRUB 2 really piled on more complexity than was needed; GRUB 0.99 was IMHO essentially the same features but way easier to configure. But even there, I get the appeal of scripting everything to be automagical. I disapprove, but I get it.