Excerpts from Sergey Manucharian's message from Sat 02-Apr-11 18:27:

Excerpts from Tobias Powalowski's message from Thu 31-Mar-11 07:40:

signoff x86_64

Sorry, my reply was too quick - I didn't tested thoroughly...

There are still artefacts in X terminals, e.g. when composing mutt messages with vim or searching a string in man pages.

The funny thing was when I tried to capture a video with xvidcap and set it's frame to the bad looking terminal, everything looked fine.

x86_64, ThinkPad R61, Intel GM965

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:

I don't think Lilo should be a show stopper. Use a more modern bootloader such as Syslinux (if you want simple), Grub 1 or Grub 2.

Modern, like grub? LILO is in [core], and is actively being developed.

It was also a part of the Arch installation from which i got it in the first place. Now, I agree it doesn't have to be a show stopper, but some serious warnings are needed at least. There are many more users out there, be sure of that. In fact, here they are already, saying pretty much the same things I am going to say below: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=116077

Grub1 is considered obsolete? It has bugs, lacks features, it has many forks, all of them now pretty much forgotten. Last time I considered grub2 it was still "development grade" and I also got a feeling of frequent user problems from the list, bug tracker and BBS. LILO on the other hand never failed to boot.

I would never trade LILO for grub, but I am contemplating a switch to syslinux since I saw a video of Dieter's talk at FOSDEM.

Just out of interest, are you only booting this kernel with lilo or others too?

Just LILO, I haven't tried grub, but did wrote a menu.lst in advance if I had to.

On 04/04/2011 03:08 PM, Adrian C. wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:

...

I don't think Lilo should be a show stopper. Use a more modern bootloader such as Syslinux (if you want simple), Grub 1 or Grub 2.

Modern, like grub? LILO is in [core], and is actively being developed.

It was also a part of the Arch installation from which i got it in the first place. Now, I agree it doesn't have to be a show stopper, but some serious warnings are needed at least. There are many more users out there, be sure of that. In fact, here they are already, saying pretty much the same things I am going to say below: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=116077

Grub1 is considered obsolete? It has bugs, lacks features, it has many forks, all of them now pretty much forgotten. Last time I considered grub2 it was still "development grade" and I also got a feeling of frequent user problems from the list, bug tracker and BBS. LILO on the other hand never failed to boot.

I would never trade LILO for grub, but I am contemplating a switch to syslinux since I saw a video of Dieter's talk at FOSDEM.

...

Just out of interest, are you only booting this kernel with lilo or others too?

Just LILO, I haven't tried grub, but did wrote a menu.lst in advance if I had to.

-- Adrian C. (anrxc) | anrxc..sysphere.org | PGP ID: D20A0618 PGP FP: 02A5 628A D8EE 2A93 996E 929F D5CB 31B7 D20A 0618

Didn't realize that Lilo was still being developed. A lot of people seem to think Syslinux is older than pie too!

I would highly encourage looking at Syslinux. It has a simple configuration like Lilo and it is as light or heavy as you want to make it.

Without any com32 modules you are given just a boot prompt and you can load the menu.c32 (basic menu like lilo) or vesamenu.c32 modules. Also, you can edit the boot parameters on the fly and modify the config without updating Syslinux.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

Just out of interest, are you only booting this kernel with lilo or others too?

...

I forgot to mention that the previous kernel 2.6.38.1-1 LILO can use.

I booted 2.6.38.2-1 with syslinux, it went fine.