On 2010-05-30 18:29 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:55:58PM -0400, Tom H wrote: >>The reverse argument can be made too. Both grub1 and grub2 just work. > > I accept this argument for grub1. Yes, I never had problems with > grub1, but grub2 is simply not ready for prime time. > > While grub2 works for simple workstations, it can’t redirect its > output to serial console and monitor like grub1 and it doesn’t > understand XEN hypervisor kernels.
The main problem with grub1 is the same as with lilo: there is no upstream maintainer, and crucial parts of the code are undocumented and not understandable¹. > As long as grub2 has so many missing features it should not be > considered default bootloader in Debian. So which bootloader should be the default? Grub1 is also lacking important features, albeit different ones than grub2 (e.g. ext4 support). Sven ¹ http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=239111#237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eigt5n7s....@turtle.gmx.de
