[arch-general] amd64 systems and archlinux
ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Tue Sep 11 08:39:44 EDT 2012
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 08:26 -0400, Stephen E. Baker wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote:
> > According to Thomas Bächler:
> >> Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might
> >> disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install
> >> GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux.
> > Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has
> > a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot
> > loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you
> > are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced
> > to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine
> > I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already
> > configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without
> > modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be
> > able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for
> > my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me
> > for syslinux.
> > ~Kyle
> Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that
> said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's
> much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install.
I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use
grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never
used any other bootloader on a PC.
I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy.
More information about the arch-general