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.
