On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:08:06PM +0200, Michal Szwaczko wrote:
GRUB is much more flexible, and - if you read up a lot - it's easy.
I have had it set up on a couple of different systems and I think one customer still has it, and configuration isn't the problem, while I think it's totally stupid to invent a new naming scheme where a common one already exists I don't have a problem adapting to it, but my issues have been with reliability.
I'd not say a word to you 2 years ago, because I was just that conservative and trusted lilo. Seems, the only hurdle was prejudice and wrong mindset about GRUB. Since then, I use GRUB exclusively.
I've tried it, so strike prejudice, but wrong mindset I'll admit to. :)
The problem I had with reliability came from the fact that GRUB stage 1 loads stage 1.5 from fs, and if that fs got corrupted no OS could be booted at all. I had to replace GRUB with MBR from DOS6 over the phone with one person.
So, maybe you should give it a shot one more time.
Some time, I surely will.
//Peter