On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you >> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when >> they're not in use? > > I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread > because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a > better job a third time but I'll try. Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using since many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is being "demonized" :-? > The block lists are used when grub's installed in a PBR because there's > no space for a stage 1.5/core.img (which can read some filesystems) so > the next step in the boot process has to be encoded and found using the > blocks that it occupies on the disk. Then I have to conclude that block lists are only used when the booloader is installed in the first sector of a disk partition, right? (...) >>> When multi-booting Linux and Windows, installing grub in the MBR *can* >>> be hazardous to your health and that of your box... >> >> Yes, the problem arises when windows is being reinstalled afterwards, >> users will then need to reinstall GRUB all over again. > > More than that. Some Windows licensing and anti-virus/malware software > installs stuff into the post-MBR gap so grub, on an msdos-labeled disk > has to fight for space there... Yet another reason for leaving untouched the MBR when using those tools. (...) >>> 2) OpenSUSE does this because it doesn't believe in installing grub in >>> the MBR (but its installer allows you to do so). >> >> That can be indeed the reason although their installer defaults change >> over the time, I can't say what's the current proposed setup, if >> installing GRUB into the MBR or dropping the bootloader into a >> partition. Or maybe they just adjust this value "on the fly" based on >> the user's disk layout, I can't recall... what I remeber from the >> openSUSE installer is that: >> >> 1/ It was very powerful and fully customizable (from a user's point of >> view). >> >> 1/ It still provided GRUB Legacy (openSUSE delayed the migration to >> GRUB2 precisely because of this, the integration between YaST and GRUB2 >> was not an easy task). > > I don't see why providing grub1 is a plus. It's not seen as a plus but it required time and resources to migrate to GRUB2 because of the YasT tool which is in the end what manages most aspects of the openSUSE core system. I can't say for sure but I can put my hand in the fire that delaying the integration of GRUB2 was mainly based on technicallities and because of their userbase, to avoid them from many problems and unwanted situations. > This autumn'll be the 3-year anniversary of Ubuntu defaulting to grub2. > It was a premature release except for the use of 9.10 as a grub2 "have > fun, hit some bugs, and file bug reports" step for 10.04 LTS. The v1.98 > that ships in Squeeze and 10.04 isn't as good or as featureful as the > latest grub2 but it's good. Debian derived distributions lead the migration to GRUB2, which is fine, but for the rest of the distributions with non-rolling release cycles which also have a reduced number of users (in comparison to Debian-based ones) the migration step had to be done with lot of careful. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/jv3hcg$vb5$8...@dough.gmane.org
