[CentOS] why was LILO removed from centOS 4.2?

Karanbir Singh mail-lists at karan.org
Wed Nov 30 17:33:17 UTC 2005

Brian T. Brunner wrote:
>>The question remains unanswered: WHY was LILO removed?
> You seem to have missed the post where I highlighted the fact that it 
> has not been removed.
> ***Yes, the "removed" was only virtual (making it invisible unless you have
> ***knowledge from elsewhere) not surgical.
>>The question was "Hey, REDHAT, *WHY*?"
> you also seem to have the wrong forum for that question, please contact 
> redhat at one of the following
> ***Anybody here know of a reason?

Lack of arch support is often cited as a reason, although most other 
boot loaders one comes across ( yaboot on ppc, silo on sparc, aboot on 
alpha, elilo on ia64 etc ) seem to have roots in lilo. One of Grub's 
intentions is to have a single cross platform /multi platform boot 
loader ( so far it does only i386 and x86_64, which is one more than lilo )

If you are interested in the low down details, 
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/ might be a place to start looking. The 
merits and demerits of a boot loader are, I feel, beyond the scope of 
this mailing list.

So, on i386 grub and lilo are both avilable, other arch's have their own 
  bootloader process / app's.

More information about the CentOS mailing list