On Tue, 2005-12-04 at 22:23 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 17:23 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > > I just checked the Redhat and Fedora distros which I still have around. > > Here are the Lilo versions: > [list of 8 different versions clipped for brevity] > > Most of the version bumps were for new Redhat releases and involved no > > source changes. There was only one patch to Redhat's Lilo in the last > > two years: a single #define. > > People stopped finding so many bugs once we stopped using lilo by > default. That's been explained to you several times now. > > You also need to look at all the other packages involved in setting up > and maintaining the bootloader to. They're pretty complicated, and a > lot of work. > > > Lilo version 21.4.4 actually dates back to 2000. > > And it needs plenty of work done, if we were going to consider using it > again. More than grub currently needs, I suspect. > > > So we have a package that is essential in some circumstances, > > So far, you won't mention which circumstances those are. So I think > most of us aren't considering this to be a fact. > > > that costs next to nothing to maintain > > That's simply not true -- there are several more patches to lilo that > have been applied for RHEL, or that may unfortunately need to be > applied. There's also very difficult logic in booty, anaconda, up2date, > and likely several other packages that has to handle it. > > And there's also a *huge* support cost to everybody involved with > helping other users, which you're obviously content to completely > ignore. It isn't nearly as easy for most users as grub is. > > > , and that takes up <0.1% of a CD's space. > > I already told you, this really didn't affect things. > > > The experience of many people in the real world is that even a five > > year old version of Lilo is more reliable than today's Grub. > > The plural of anecdote is not data. Right now, the number of people we > can document who admit to having such experience is hovering menacingly > around 5. And that's five really bad sources -- none of them will > provide any detail on what's gone wrong at all! Bull crap. Everyone else probably gave up or found some other way around the problem. Why would I or anyone else enter a new bug report for a bug that is already duplicated a bunch of times. I am sure there are dozens of people who have the same complications that don't post duplicate bug reports. I am willing to guess that like me many people have opted for booting off a drive attached to slower onboard PATA device, because that was the only way they could get there machine to run. Each time I installed a new drive or replace a drive with a larger one, grub would fail and it only reports a stupid *error number*. What good is that! Lookup the error number and all it meant was that it could not find a requested file, but gave no indication what file or device it was looking for the file on. Are you seriously going to tell me that only 5 people have got the arcane error number after changing a non boot drive? I would have preferred to leave the ATA66 ports for the CD/DVD drives. And use the faster SATA and PCI ATA133 controlers for the hard drives. It works but is not optimal. > > > Certainly a five year old version of Lilo handles software RAID better than > > today's Grub. > > This is just plain insulting. You haven't even *tried* the software > RAID support in today's grub. You've already said as much today! > > > And so the cardinals of the Redhat vatican issue a bull banning Lilo. > > Nobody's stopping you from using it, so quit pretending that's what > we're doing. You have just as much choice as I do; you're choosing to > whine on a mailing list about problems you won't even name, much less > provide technical facts to support. 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. > > Complaining more isn't going to change my mind. Continuing to refuse to > provide any technical details on whatever your problem is won't make me > any more likely to, either. If you really, really want lilo back, > you're going to have to actually *convince* me that it's a good idea. > You don't have to convince me that you've had a really bad experience, > that's obvious. But if you can't tell me why, I can't help make sure > anybody's experience is any better. > > -- > Peter