On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 13:57 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 13:24, Chris Adams wrote: > > If you can cite _specific instances_ of GRUB's alleged unreliability > > that have not been addresses in the current version, please open > > Bugzilla cases. Otherwise, your claims are baseless. > > Chris, > > In software development there's difference between a long-term lack of > reliability and a repeatable failure mode. Both are bugs. > > If <insert politician's name here> stands up and says that nobody has > prove that he lied today, that doesn't make him trustworthy. > > Grub has not been reliable. Again no substantiation. Grub is the default since several years, which means it has had milions of users. Now, you want more track record for grub. But would YOU run grub even if lilo was put back? I thought so. So how would grub get that track record for you? It wouldn't. Result: in our eyes it would never get that track record. Proof: Grub has built that track record over the past 2 1/2 years, where initially it was a bit shaky perhaps (although I don't think it was that bad) but is quite mature nowadays. You just failed to notice I guess because you assumed it was not reliable and thus didn't use it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part