Yet again... Hammer... Nail... The first struck the second perpendicular to the centre of the flat part on the top. On Thu, 2005-14-04 at 11:02 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:48, Pedro Fernandes Macedo wrote: > > And what relation Eclipse has to the lilo issue? None... > > Pedro: > > The relevance is that Redhat's excuse for replacing an essential tool > (Lilo) with an unreliable/inadequate/undocumented/defunct tool (Grub > Legacy) was that Lilo cost too much to support. Redhat is putting a lot > of work into Eclipse - a product that few will need or use. A tiny > fraction of the Eclipse effort would suffice to retain Lilo in Core. > > We've shown that Redhat has not supported Lilo in years - Lilo just > works. Pretty much all that Redhat needs to do is leave it alone and > let it be built and distributed automatically. > > > Redhat then claims that the cost is not in direct Lilo support but > rather for massive kludges that are needed in Anaconda and Up2date in > order to interface to Lilo. > > We've shown that there are no such massive kludges - just a generic > structure in Grubby that's needed to support half a dozen boot loaders > on a variety of different architectures. > > > Redhat makes vague claims that the latest Grub handles RAID-1 and asks > us to test Grub yet again. (Perhaps "ask" is an overstatement: Redhat > once again pulled Lilo so we'd be forced to test their inferior > alternative.) > > We've shown that Redhat has not provided documentation on using Grub > with RAID-1 in any of the logical places, and we've shown that the > obvious "grub-install --recheck /dev/md0" does not install Grub to any OMG... why would you do that? ;-) > of the MBR's. Redhat has thus far been unable to tell us any new magic > spells for making Grub do what Redhat vaguely implies that Grub can now > do. (There are, of course, many complex and error-prone workarounds, > but Redhat has been vaguely implying that those are no longer needed.) > > > This has become much more serious than a debate over whether or not > someone at Redhat is deliberately trying to cripple their product line. > If Redhat does not soon substantiate their claims we will be forced to > entertain doubts as to the honesty of the developer of a product which > has root privileges on our systems. > > --Mike Bird