On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 09:41 +0100, Ulrik S. Kofod wrote:
Well to me it doesn't really make sense to remove LILO and keep the "change boot loader" button as "no bootloader" is the only alternative to GRUB. User frendlyness has not improved much just because LILO isn't displayed as option anymore.
But newbie user confusion is reduced.
The idea here is that "gurus" would know to view the boot-time options and pass them, whereas newbies would be dumbfounded if given more than 1 choice.
Non-geeks shouldn't tuch the "change bootloader" button in the first place.
But just the mere option will confuse them. It is treated as a "learning curve" if it is merely offered. Hence why distros installers are defaulting to more and more stream-lined, less options -- _unless_ you pass a boot-time option.
This is the reality of Linux getting more and more popular. And these reviews are why this is happening. Stupid, I agree, but it's the reality.
Instead of removing options they should add geek warnings so people would know what to avoid, and still make room for them to learn from their mistakes :) The "linux lilo" option (nearly) works. I'm doing a minimal install and the centOS 4.2 server CD crashed on me in the install process, something about files it couldn't find (didn't save the dump sorry), and when using centOS 4.2 CD #1 I need CD #3 aswell to get LILO.... I'm getting a little annoyed again :)
Well, CentOS certainly seems to be the "bitch list" as of late. Welcome to the party! ;->