Grub 2

Richard Gill richard at
Thu Oct 18 22:27:54 PDT 2007

2007/10/19, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at>:
> This is a bit of a rant.
> After reviewing the thread on 'mktemp, tempfile & coreutils', I asked my
> self what is the big deal about Grub 2.  I went to the Grub home page
> and did some reading.
> My reaction is "Are they out of their minds?"  My conclusion is yes.
> The whole idea of a bootloader is to get the OS up and running.  I
> looked at and am astounded.
> This goes completely against the Unix philosophy of making simple single
> function tools.  Why are they trying to do lsmod/rmmod, enter rescue
> mode, set and unset variables, run scripts, and so forth.  They are
> trying to recreate the kernel.
> I don't have a problem with rewriting Grub, but they have let feature
> creep run away and lost sight of the purpose of the application.  Just
> because you *can* do something doesn't mean that you *should* do it.
> I don't see LFS going to this for a *long* time.

I must agree with Bruce even if I can't imagine a bad Grub. Grub is
the best bootloader I've ever seen, and now the first choice for any
GNU/Linux system. However, they tend to bloat their software, and this
bring many problems:
* Grub1 is not 'really' maintained anymore, what for all the worldwild user?
* Grub2 is not ready for work, so not making evolutions to Grub1 can
be problematic - the task to make it stable is big too, in regards to
the functionnalities they went to implement it too.
* Grub2 may not be the first choice anymore for the 'amazing simple,
little, powerfull' bootloader we all now know.

I just hope the Grub team will make us tell a lie ...

Richard 'riri' GILL
jabber: riribreizh at
« Frimousse en excessivité émousse son expressivité »

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list