alex at milivojevic.org wrote: > Quoting Feizhou <feizhou at graffiti.net>: > >> Nothing beats grub's ability to let you roam around the filesystem to >> find out just what kernels were installed and what their configuration >> parameters were and then load a kernel and its parameters on the spot. > > > I agree that Grub is more featurefull boot loader with many nice > options. However, for my servers I simply want them to boot without > human intervention. Grub fails to do that more often than LILO. Grub > needs extra work to get it > right on my servers (that have mirrored disks). I don't care about nice > graphical menu (there's nobody in server room to watch it). I don't > care about > Grub's CLI (there's nobody in server room in the middle of the night to > use it). > I just want system to boot every time. Ha. Put multiple dhcp servers and tftp servers and the only thing that will prevent pxegrub from booting your box will be a network problem where the issue of whether box is up or not becomes moot. pxegrub will overcome any bootloader issues unless of course you have faulty RAM/NIC. > > For dedicated Linux servers, LILO works perfectly, out of the box, no > additional > work required. Those boxes are simple to boot, no fancy stuff in boot > loader > config files. Grub is better when you have "complicated boot configuraion" > box. And "complicated boot configuration" boxes are usually desktops and > laptops, especially those in hands of developers. I completely disagree with you here since I use grub over pxe to install/boot my servers and avoid any local bootloading problems.