Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 17th Dec 2011 00:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 500374
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GRUB (legacy) was much better than GRUB2
Perhaps but there's little difference when it comes to how the gui works when selecting boot entry. Saying that it is unintelligible is nonsense because menu in grub looks and works pretty much the same way.
If it is cluttered then the same menu would be cluttered in grub.
Perhaps but there's little difference when it comes to how the gui works when selecting boot entry. Saying that it is unintelligible is nonsense because menu in grub looks and works pretty much the same way.
If it is cluttered then the same menu would be cluttered in grub.
If it is cluttered then the same menu would be cluttered in grub.
Your point is well taken. However, the nice thing about GRUB legacy is that to reconfigure your menu entries, you simply have to edit file /boot/grub/menu.lst. GRUB2 is far messier - in fact, every time I've had to rework the menus, I needed to go back and read the documentation on how to do it. I actually find it easier to just nuke GRUB2 and install GRUB legacy, which is still available in Ubuntu and Debian (though GRUB2 is now the default).
Edited 2011-12-17 05:55 UTC





Member since:
2006-01-07
Unintelligible? Really? 3 clearly labeled entries is unintelligible? There's almost no difference between grub and grub2 when it comes to using the actual menu.
I'm going to agree with the original author on this point - GRUB (legacy) was much better than GRUB2. I tip my hat to the Puppy developers for sticking with the old GRUB. I never understood why it was necessary to make GRUB2 so complicated to configure. Simplicity is bliss.
Edited 2011-12-17 05:43 UTC