In one sentence, grub is poorly documented, over complicated pants, and lilo ROCKS... Feizhou wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos