On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 19:23, Peter Jones wrote: > I'm choosing to continue not resurrecting lilo, since none of the > group of you who want it back are willing to provide any technical > reasons whatsoever. Historically Grub has been unreliable. [See bugzillas for Fedora, Debian, GNU, etc, etc.] If someone tested the latest version of Grub for six months and found no bugs at all, that would not change the fact that historically Grub has been notoriously unreliable. Historically Lilo has been reliable. Even a five year old version is works fine. Now, after five years of missing features and poor reliability, you claim that Grub is as reliable as Lilo. I doubt it - and experience dictates scepticism here - but nobody yet knows for certain. Does your opinion merit our trying Grub again sometime? Yes. Does your opinion justify throwing out Lilo? No. It's an unjustifiable risk based upon the packages' respective histories. The WMD have now morphed into the difficulty of running Lilo from Anaconda. (Seems incredible to me but I'll allow you some leeway here since I haven't actually tried to write code to invoke Lilo from Anaconda.) Well, if they don't get along, add a --play-nicely patch to Lilo. It's a lot easier to munge a command-line interface in Linux space than to reinvent all of Lilo's wheels in boot space. Or work on Grub if Redhat shareholders don't object. Use Grub if you prefer it. Make Grub the default for newbies if you like. Just don't deliberately break things for those of us who need the reliable service that Lilo provides. YOU are the one who broke things. YOU are the one who has provided no justification for breaking things. WE aren't trying to dictate which boot loader you use. WE just want YOU to stop breaking things. (Is this getting too personal?) Lilo worked fine until you removed it. Put it back. Don't mess with it. Focus on Grub. Try not to think about Lilo. Let the scripts compile it with the rest of FC4 and ship it on the damned CD's. --Mike Bird