4 ms·

Nice writeup, but[1] I'm wondering, could the author have saved himself from a lot of grief by not using an ancient, outdated bootloader in the first place? [1

Nice writeup, but[1] I'm wondering, could the author have saved himself from a lot of grief by not using an ancient, outdated bootloader in the first place? [1]: I don't want to spoil the fun, but look at [2] in the article and wonder: who the hell is still using grub 1? Even mainstay isolinux (which in addition has to deal with lots of weird / broken BIOS implementations of cd booting (El Torito, anyone?)) does a lot better.

martey 12y ago
This article was written in November 2009 and is 5 years old.
- ackalker 12y ago
  afaict, work on grub2 started back in 2004, and a backport patch[1] of the 'paranoid' A20 checking for grub legacy was posted to the bug-grub mailing list back in 2006. In fact, the very first reply[2] to that patch makes exactly the same point I did above: why not use grub2? [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grub/2006-07/msg00015.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grub/2006-07/msg00015.... [2]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grub/2006-07/msg00025.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grub/2006-07/msg00025....
  - martey 12y ago
    The rest of the discussion on the email thread from 2006 on the A20 patch is about whether GRUB 2 is ready for use in production environments, so I am not sure what your point is. My point wasn't that GRUB 2 did not exist in 2009, but that "Who the hell is still using grub 1?" was not as valid a question then, and is definitely not a reason for you to dismiss the article.
mjg59 12y ago
Because in 2009 grub 2 was a dreadful EFI bootloader and there were working patches for grub legacy. We shipped the bootloader we had, not the bootloader we wished we had.