On 12/24/2017 12:43 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > Usually an example/stub config file is provided, which makes it very > easy to adapt it to your needs. Yes, grub2 really and truly sucks in this regard. > Not misinformation, or FUD, just a difference of opinion. In my opinion > - and in my experience - the grub legacy menu.lst and the syslinux.cfg > scripts are short, simple, and very easy to understand while the grub2 > config scripts I've run into are extremely long, complicated, and hard > to understand. I'd say it is the grub authors who are spreading the FUD, but I really do feel that the common grub.cfg example is misdirection in action. A difference of opinion would be if two people looked at the same grub.cfg and one person said "this is too complicated" and the other said "this is nice and simple". :) I agree that grub-mkconfig examples are weird and complicated. TBH I have no idea what they're doing, and they kind of scare me. >> Hmm, I think I will invest the time in updating the Wiki page. This >> travesty cannot continue, I must make sure people are well-informed. > > I welcome any effort you make in trying to make the grub config simpler > and more understandable. I have no inherent bias against the tool, and > would be open to using it if I felt that it was becoming as easy to use > as grub-legacy or syslinux. I'll see what I can do. :D The current wiki page buries all information about the ability to manually create a grub.cfg, in the "Tips and tricks" sub-page as a tiny blurb. -- Eli Schwartz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
