[CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?

[Bryan J. Smith]

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   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------
Some things (or athletes) money can't buy.
For everything else there's "ManningCard."