On 12/24/2017 12:43 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
Usually an example/stub config file is provided, which makes it very easy to adapt it to your needs.
Yes, grub2 really and truly sucks in this regard.
Not misinformation, or FUD, just a difference of opinion. In my opinion
- and in my experience - the grub legacy menu.lst and the syslinux.cfg
scripts are short, simple, and very easy to understand while the grub2 config scripts I've run into are extremely long, complicated, and hard to understand.
I'd say it is the grub authors who are spreading the FUD, but I really do feel that the common grub.cfg example is misdirection in action.
A difference of opinion would be if two people looked at the same grub.cfg and one person said "this is too complicated" and the other said "this is nice and simple". :)
I agree that grub-mkconfig examples are weird and complicated. TBH I have no idea what they're doing, and they kind of scare me.
Hmm, I think I will invest the time in updating the Wiki page. This travesty cannot continue, I must make sure people are well-informed.
I welcome any effort you make in trying to make the grub config simpler and more understandable. I have no inherent bias against the tool, and would be open to using it if I felt that it was becoming as easy to use as grub-legacy or syslinux.
I'll see what I can do. :D The current wiki page buries all information about the ability to manually create a grub.cfg, in the "Tips and tricks" sub-page as a tiny blurb.