Jan Engelhardt wrote:
If you start to throw in shell scripts, then certainly, perl-Bootloader is a lot more reliable, because in contrast to your shellage, is tested by more than just one person.
---- Au contrare. depending on /bin/sh, is alot less code to depend on than perl which has had numerous incompatible changes over the past 10-15 years. /bin/sh has been far more stable.
But since I was talking about *hand* installing kernels without automation, ...
--- Hand installing, like where you enter 1's and 0's with dip switches on the front of a panel? or do you have single commands that copy entire files? Where did you get the image? did you enter the binary by hand or did you run a script? "By Hand"??.. who, who does any kernel remaking more than 1-2 times doesn't do something to aid in install -- other wise they'd be wasting time. The script was more reliable than anything I could type in. No typo's, no misspellings, knows the right versions without me even thinking about it. That is my idea of a hand install. I write helper scripts to save my hands from over use -- but it was all still done by my hands.
well since you have gone off-topic there
Not really, we were discussing relative merits of lilo/grub because grub (or grub2) turns off the boot console by default in text mode -- and doesn't seem to use the built-in text modes of the BIOS/graphics chip, **to the point**, that many people earlier in the discussion didn't know what was meant by text mode nor know that the text mode of a frame buffer wasn't really text mode. Those people are sufficiently separated from the low-level HW functionality as to already be unaware of its abilities. and what they have given up to use various conveniences. PC-boot computers have been the main staple of booting for the past 40 years -- UEFI compat while on schedule to supplant that is far from universal. UEFI compat more closely parallels grub boot in that its almost a miniature OS in the BIOS, but as you move up in level, it's easier to lose control of the low-level details -- like being able to easily boot a kernel at will -- suse is buying into a future where machines will have to have secure boot disabled or not to boot at all. Further partitioning the world. Simply removing 'text mode' a root symptom of booting with one loader vs. the other. So they would seem to be interrelated. Point being if suse supported at least 2 ways of doing boot lilo/elilo for simplicity and grub/grub2 for those who like to call themselves power users the point would be moot. At the level of the average desktop user -- they won't care much which is used as long as it boots. Only us development types get into this level of arcane disagreement.... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org