On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 22:03, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > Of course, in all this, keep your mind open. You might find that by > pointing out a specific, definable short coming of grub the developers > may choose to get grub up-to-snuff rather than include lilo. Been there, done that. As have many others on this list and elsewhere. Number one is lack of reliability, followed by lack of predictability which is largely a consequence of lack of documentation. Jeff thinks that Fedora is not supposed to be reliable, and posits change for change's sake as Fedora's raison d'etre. If Redhat would confirm that we can all stop wasting our time. Until then, we'll assume that reliability is a Fedora/RHEL goal, whether stated or not. Experienced programmers and sysadmins report that we need Lilo for reliable systems. We've advanced three valid reasons for keeping Lilo for serious users. The flame kids have countered with "Works for me", "Redhat must have reasons that it's not telling us", and Godwins Law. --Mike Bird