lilo is still there. Its just not available as a choice in the install. We build all of our servers using kickstart (automated version of the install) and there lilo can be specified as a boot loader.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ulrik S. Kofod Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:06 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?
I can't choose LILO as boot loader anymore in the install process? And what is the advantages in GRUP vs. LILO that are so great that LILO has been deleted all together?
One big disadvantages when forced to use GRUB is that it is a hassle to make the disks in a RAID1 bootable. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-March/msg05935.html
and RAID1 seems pretty useless when it is the only bootable disk that fails.
can someone come up with a nice one-liner that will make GRUB "global" like LILO is out-of-the-box ? or is ther a parameter you can give?
I don't know about you but when one of my disks fails I really don't need too many new check marks to worry about on my to do list.
best regards Ulrik _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Nielsen, Steve wrote:
lilo is still there. Its just not available as a choice in the install.
yes it is available as an install option, you just need to ask anaconda for it ( boot the installer with 'lilo' as an option )
- K
great! now I got all annoyed for nothing ;)
thanks
Karanbir Singh sagde:
Nielsen, Steve wrote:
lilo is still there. Its just not available as a choice in the install.
yes it is available as an install option, you just need to ask anaconda for it ( boot the installer with 'lilo' as an option )
- K
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:38 +0100, Ulrik S. Kofod wrote:
great! now I got all annoyed for nothing ;)
Don't worry, that's not a rare occurrence here.
"Ulrik S. Kofod" usk@cybersite.dk wrote:
great! now I got all annoyed for nothing ;)
If you haven't noticed, Red Hat has been making more and more options not available in the default install. This is because they regularly get "beat up" in the media for confusing people.
For the most part, "linux expert" has _always_ provided all the geeky options in just about every Red Hat release for the past 4+ years. Only a few, select options are left out that are more problematic or are not GUI-based.
E.g., you can always hit "Alt-F2" and run [c]fdisk if you don't want to use Disk Druid.
Bryan J. Smith sagde:
If you haven't noticed, Red Hat has been making more and more options not available in the default install. This isboot loader because they regularly get "beat up" in the media for confusing peshouldn'tttouchder
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.
Non-geeks shouldn't tuch the "change bootloader" button in the first place.
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 :)
best regards Ulrik
Ulrik S. Kofod wrote:
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 :)
I dont see any issues raised at http://bugs.centos.org/ if there is a problem like missing files etc, make sure you file it - if you want it fixed.
Like a wise Orc once said, if its not in the bugs db, it never happened.
- K
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! ;->
Bryan J. Smith sagde:
when using centOS 4.2 CD #1 I need CD #3 aswell to get LILO....
Well, CentOS certainly seems to be the "bitch list" as of late. Welcome to the party! ;->
Just need to point out that I'm VERY happy with centOS! I just think it is a little silly having to download 650MB just to get LILO :)
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 13:28 +0100, Ulrik S. Kofod wrote:
Bryan J. Smith sagde:
when using centOS 4.2 CD #1 I need CD #3 aswell to get LILO....
Well, CentOS certainly seems to be the "bitch list" as of late. Welcome to the party! ;->
Just need to point out that I'm VERY happy with centOS! I just think it is a little silly having to download 650MB just to get LILO :)
Maybe ... but it would be sillier to bump something that is part of the default install off CD-1 and add an optional item that requires passing in options at boot time to enable it ... when 99.9% of the people won't use it :)
Actually, what packages are on which disks is a magically done thing by the build process (the anaconda supplied programs pkgorder and buildinstall control it) and it would be hard, but not impossible, to change.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 05:24, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Well, CentOS certainly seems to be the "bitch list" as of late. Welcome to the party! ;->
Complaints about small things should be taken as a sign of overall success of the distribution. It means the problems aren't big enough to give up or move to a different product and people's expectations have been raised.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Complaints about small things should be taken as a sign of overall success of the distribution. It means the problems aren't big enough to give up or move to a different product and people's expectations have been raised.
I'm just surprised that what used to be an "upstream provider issue" and left at that is a sprawling set of "bitches with no end" as of late.
I ignored the first few, then tried to respond to the next few, now I'm not going to bother anymore -- people will talk on end about their justification (which are often narrowminded), excessive workarounds (that aren't necessary, but it's all they know), etc... while completely ignoring what most of us do when we need such functionality (possibly with a better solution -- or at least several that fit the bill).
Let's get the reality straight, these are upstream provider defaults and they aren't going to change for that reason -- at least not in the stock CentOS distribution. So why do we see the bitching for the impossible?
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 12:54 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Let's get the reality straight, these are upstream provider defaults and they aren't going to change for that reason -- at least not in the stock CentOS distribution. So why do we see the bitching for the impossible?
Better question... why would you even WANT to complain? I don't get it either. CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I want right now. If people don't like the choices Red Hat makes, there's always SuSE. But me personally? I find that the best distributions are the ones (like CentOS or Ubuntu) where certain choices have been made and they stick with them. Usually these choices are well thought-out. If you want the jack of all trades distro SuSE or FreeBSD even are options where you can install anything you want and few assumptions are made for you. That's part of why we have hundreds of distros. Don't like CentOS, go try one that makes LILO a priority...
ugh...
Preston
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Better question... why would you even WANT to complain? I don't get it either.
I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to the others), as I agree that this is not something that even involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases -- asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS maintainers (instead of Red Hat).
CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I want right now.
As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will not change, etc...
Don't like CentOS, go try one that makes LILO a priority...
Probably the best statement I've seen to date.
Although you're just going to prompt people to say things like, "but I want CentOS to have LILO" or worse yet "I just want CentOS to be the 'best'."
"Best" is relative.
On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to the others), as I agree that this is not something that even involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases -- asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS maintainers (instead of Red Hat).
CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I want right now.
As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will not change, etc...
I see things differently. People who run CentOS are always going to want answers to questions that are upstream provider decisions, and they're going to present those queries to CentOS because they're not a part of the paying audience to discuss this with the upstream provider. IMO, such questions are quite legitimate, and they help others to evaluate the product (CentOS as derived from the upstream provider base) more fully. And who, after all, has failed to gripe when his favorite toy is withheld?
Some of these discussions get quite long-winded, but I usually learn from them.
-- Collins Richey Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 20:16 -0700, Collins Richey wrote:
On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to the others), as I agree that this is not something that even involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases -- asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS maintainers (instead of Red Hat).
CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I want right now.
As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will not change, etc...
I see things differently. People who run CentOS are always going to want answers to questions that are upstream provider decisions, and they're going to present those queries to CentOS because they're not a part of the paying audience to discuss this with the upstream provider. IMO, such questions are quite legitimate, and they help others to evaluate the product (CentOS as derived from the upstream provider base) more fully. And who, after all, has failed to gripe when his favorite toy is withheld?
---- with but a few exceptions, CentOS is pretty faithful to the upstream product and has stated their intent to remain so. There is of course, CentOS Plus and CentOS Extras that 'extend' beyond what is offered by upstream. http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3
While the CentOS developers might query the user base from time to time, it isn't a democracy and majority does not rule.
Thus when decisions made by the upstream provider such as to not make it obvious that there is a lilo alternative to grub in anaconda, the CentOS developers have adopted those decisions faithfully.
Craig
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 20:16 -0700, Collins Richey wrote:
On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to the others), as I agree that this is not something that even involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases -- asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS maintainers (instead of Red Hat).
CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I want right now.
As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will not change, etc...
I see things differently. People who run CentOS are always going to want answers to questions that are upstream provider decisions, and they're going to present those queries to CentOS because they're not a part of the paying audience to discuss this with the upstream provider. IMO, such questions are quite legitimate, and they help others to evaluate the product (CentOS as derived from the upstream provider base) more fully. And who, after all, has failed to gripe when his favorite toy is withheld?
Some of these discussions get quite long-winded, but I usually learn from them.
BUT ... the RHEL taroon list is also available and RH has people who monitor and answer questions on that list.
You don't have to be a paying RH customer to join or post questions to that list ... and that is a mechanism to feedback info directly to RH.
I know that there are a couple RH people who are subscribed to this list too, but they probably won't answer those kind of questions here :)
------------ Just for the record ... in case anyone hasn't gathered this ...
We will not deviate from decisions that the upstream provider makes without a very good reason (pretty much ... we won't deviate at all) ... we did deviate from the decision to leave out CAcert.org as a Trusted Certificate Authority for mozilla/firefox. That is a decision that we made based on the fact that CACert.org is trying to do the same thing that CentOS is ... bring community content to people for free.
We have taken some heat for that decision, but we will not change it.
SO, if you want something in CentOS proper, it needs to be in the upstream providers product.
Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
BUT ... the RHEL taroon list is also available and RH has people who monitor and answer questions on that list. You don't have to be a paying RH customer to join or post questions to that list ... and that is a mechanism to
feedback
info directly to RH.
Yep, but some people on this list are oblivous to that.
[ Yes, it's going in the ELManagers FAQ -- which I'll finish when I'm not working 80+ hours/week, as well as when [American] football season is over ;-]
I know that there are a couple RH people who are subscribed to this list too, but they probably won't answer those kind of questions here :)
People forget that Red Hat employees can't always say things because what they say could be taken as coming from Red Hat, and not themselves. Anyone on the various Red Hat lists will see this too -- with only a select few people, where X is their paid focus, are in a position to give an "unofficial' answer.
So, again, if you want those answers, you've gotta hit the Red Hat lists to reach those relevant people who _can_ say things because they _are_ the authority on them at Red Hat.
We have taken some heat for that decision, but we will not change it. SO, if you want something in CentOS proper, it needs to be in the upstream providers product.
It's the #1 reason why I can trust CentOS when I don't want to pay for a SLA. And I know there are a lot of other, paying Red Hat customers here who have the same view (as well some who aren't paying RH customers who probably feel the same way).
Preston Crawford wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 12:54 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Let's get the reality straight, these are upstream provider defaults and they aren't going to change for that reason -- at least not in the stock CentOS distribution. So why do we see the bitching for the impossible?
Better question... why would you even WANT to complain? I don't get it either.
Really!
[rj@mavis pop]$ grep "why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?" ./CentOS | wc -l 54 [rj@mavis pop]$
It would be interesting to know how many posts giving help for real problems -- indeed, how many calls for help on bugs, procedures, packages, etc -- have been lost in that pile of drivel. The "why, why, why" reminds me so much of my great-grandson.... before his 5th birthday.
On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
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.
I'm just curious. Where are there any non-geeks or raw newbies coughing up big bucks to run RHEL?
-- Collins Richey Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
Collins Richey crichey@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just curious. Where are there any non-geeks or raw newbies coughing up big bucks to run RHEL?
Same reason they do for MS Windows Server, Sun Solaris, etc...
"Bryan J. Smith" thebs413@earthlink.net wrote:
Same reason they do for MS Windows Server, Sun Solaris, etc...
And, I should have mentioned, remember that Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS is also available in volume as Red Hat Desktop.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 02:41, Ulrik S. Kofod wrote:
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 :)
If you have a working machine while installing another one it is much faster/easier to do an NFS install. Just export the directory where the downloaded ISO images reside, burn only the first one, boot with 'linux askmethod' at the boot prompt, pick NFS as the method and point it to the exported directory. The installer does all the magic necessary to loopback mount the images as needed so you don't have to wait around and swap CDs.
Quoting "Ulrik S. Kofod" usk@cybersite.dk:
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 :)
Probably the LILO RPM missing on the CD. If you rebuild CD image with LILO RPM included, it might work.
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Quoting "Ulrik S. Kofod" usk@cybersite.dk:
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 :)
Probably the LILO RPM missing on the CD. If you rebuild CD image with LILO RPM included, it might work.
if you can verify this, could you file this as an issue at http://bugs.centos.org/ - I'll make sure the situation is rectified in time for ServerCD 4.3
thanks
- K
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:00, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Probably the LILO RPM missing on the CD. If you rebuild CD image with LILO RPM included, it might work.
if you can verify this, could you file this as an issue at http://bugs.centos.org/ - I'll make sure the situation is rectified in time for ServerCD 4.3
Has anyone looked at what SMEserver v7 (the Centos4 based one) does? It not only installs on raid by default, it creates a 'broken' RAID1 if you only have one drive so you can add a mirror painlessly later. I don't have a running system right now to see if they put /boot on raid1 or if they use lilo or grub.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:00, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Probably the LILO RPM missing on the CD. If you rebuild CD image with LILO RPM included, it might work.
if you can verify this, could you file this as an issue at http://bugs.centos.org/ - I'll make sure the situation is rectified in time for ServerCD 4.3
Has anyone looked at what SMEserver v7 (the Centos4 based one) does? It not only installs on raid by default, it creates a 'broken' RAID1 if you only have one drive so you can add a mirror painlessly later. I don't have a running system right now to see if they put /boot on raid1 or if they use lilo or grub.
Firstly, the primary aim of the CentOS distro is to stay in sync with upstream. So nothing on that is going to change.
Secondly, Feel free to evaluate what SMEserver are doing w.r.t installer and submit patches for the ServerCD.
Also, moving this conversation to the CentOS Developers mailing list, if anyone is interested in following this - subscribe there.
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
Bryan J. Smith -
Collins Richey -
Craig White -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Nielsen, Steve -
Preston Crawford -
Robert -
Ulrik S. Kofod