On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:42:43PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:18:42PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively increased complexity of grub2?
Probably none, but legacy grub didn't have support for booting on UEFI platforms, and no one wanted to add that support, let alone maintain it.
Yeah, and a lot of us are unfriendly to UEFI....
In recent Fedora, I added rudimentary support for extlinux as a bootloader when you want to avoid the grub2 complexity. (This is a great example, though, of something that may not trickle down from Fedora, unless someone wants to step up to make the feature more robust.)
And why do all configuration files suddenly *desperately* need to be xml?
If only the grub2 config files were xml! Instead, they're shell scripts which generate shell scripts which generate the actual configuration.
*gag* That's the impression I got from my netbook (Ubuntu netbook remix).
I get *real* tired of people who are clever, and bit themselves in the back doing it. I'm a firm believer in elegance... and simplicity is usually elegant.
I've read that Brian Kernighan said something like this, once upon a time:
"Debugging code is at least twice as hard as writing it. Therefore, if you write code a cleverly as you possibly can, you are then, by definition, not smart enough to be able to debug it."
Seems like that would apply to a pile of kludges as described above.