richard.melville69 at googlemail.com
Thu Mar 5 11:27:59 PST 2015
On 5 March 2015 at 16:04, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Melville wrote:
> Far more development appears to go into Syslinux than Grub2. There were
>> five different versions of Syslinux released in 2013 and one at the end of
>> last year. I find Syslinux much easier to build, configure and use. It's
>> small, light, and fast. Surely, all we require of a bootloader is to boot
>> the system. Again, as you say: "simpler is better".
> grub can be complicated, but we actually make it fairly easy. The build
> is CMMI with a few extra configure switches. The configuration file is
> about 10 lines long. It's the commercial distros that make it complicated.
I can accept that Grub2 should be learned for practical reasons; after
all, it is the de facto bootloader for distros. And LFS is an excellent
learning environment. Furthermore, AFAIK, only Grub can boot a complete
range of file systems, whereas Syslinux is limited to the Ext family
(including Btrfs). And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Grub can handle
full-disk encryption, whereas Syslinux can't. However, if all you want to
do is boot your shiny new LFS with the minimum of hassle, then Syslinux is
hard to beat.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lfs-support