Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:18:42PM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively >> increased complexity of grub2? > > Probably none, but legacy grub didn't have support for booting on UEFI > platforms, and no one wanted to add that support, let alone maintain it. > Yeah, and a lot of us are unfriendly to UEFI.... > In recent Fedora, I added rudimentary support for extlinux as a bootloader > when you want to avoid the grub2 complexity. (This is a great example, > though, of something that may not trickle down from Fedora, unless someone > wants to step up to make the feature more robust.) > >> And why do all configuration files suddenly >> *desperately* need to be xml? > > If only the grub2 config files were xml! Instead, they're shell scripts > which generate shell scripts which generate the actual configuration. *gag* That's the impression I got from my netbook (Ubuntu netbook remix). I get *real* tired of people who are clever, and bit themselves in the back doing it. I'm a firm believer in elegance... and simplicity is usually elegant. > (Sadly, I'm not making that up. I think those might even source other > shells scripts.) > > XML configruation happens when GUI developers write config files, mostly. > But fortunately it is not a universal disease -- systemd, for example, for > all its controvery, uses lovely sysadmin-friendly key=value config files. I have one thing to say about that: to quote a friend: "ah, your mother dresses you funny, and you need a mouse to delete files" (M. Pins) mark