On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:42:43PM -0400, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:18:42PM -0400, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx 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. I've read that Brian Kernighan said something like this, once upon a time: "Debugging code is at least twice as hard as writing it. Therefore, if you write code a cleverly as you possibly can, you are then, by definition, not smart enough to be able to debug it." Seems like that would apply to a pile of kludges as described above. -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------- God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." --------------------------- Corinthians 5:21 --------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos