On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 08:26 -0400, Stephen E. Baker wrote: > On 10/09/2012 6:57 AM, Kyle wrote: > > According to Thomas Bächler: > >> Let me also express part of my personal opinion, which others might > >> disagree with: If you wanted high quality software, why did you install > >> GRUB? If you want a decent bootloader, use syslinux. > > > > > > Actually, at least from where I'm sitting, this "personal opinion" has > > a good bit of technical merrit. I can confirm that my life with boot > > loaders has become much easier since switching to syslinux, and you > > are the second regular contributor who has stated this. I was forced > > to chainload Windows XP after resizing a partition on this old machine > > I am still using, hopefully until the end of the day. This was already > > configured into syslinux by default, and worked flawlessly without > > modification. Additionally, the Arch defaults were sane enough to be > > able to run with very little modification, only needing the label for > > my root partition in the append line for the kernel. A big +1 from me > > for syslinux. > > ~Kyle > Also prefer syslinux. In my opinion when the news post came up that > said grub was deprecated it should have mentioned syslinux, since it's > much closer to grub-legacy than grub2 is, and trivial to install. I'm still using grub legacy on my machine. Is there a reason not to use grub legacy anymore? I also used grub2, but I don't like it. I never used any other bootloader on a PC. I never noticed any drawbacks using grub legacy. Regards, Ralf
