To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sidux used Grub2 when I installed it, and I've had a similar experience so far. It's significantly more complex, with config files scattered everywhere. Increased complexity would be OK if I where getting something for it, but I don't appear to be; there's no obvious new functionality, just lots of new complexity. At least it works, tho, so I can't complain too much. 
I haven't personally been hit by any grub2 problems on my own machines, but I've had to fix a few that have. Good fscking god, whoever thought the new design for grub2 was smart must have been smoking something seriously strong. It's a real bitch to troubleshoot, the conf files are ridiculously complex, and I've yet to see any benefits of grub2 other than gpt support, which later versions of the original grub had anyway. Change for the sheer hell of change is *not* a good design philosophy... not that most GNU people seem to understand or care.




Member since:
2005-07-06
I've had a real problem with Grub2. I have to hand edit several config files just to get it to boot my laptop. I have to turn off UUID, turn of the "search" section, etc. It took a lot of googling to figure out. I don't believe it is a good system. The files are spread out all over the place. I have had no such problems with the original grub (or LILO). I'm steering clear of Grub2 for now.