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."