Alan, On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 06:55, Alan Cox wrote: > Its unmaintained False wrt Lilo in general. Circular argument wrt RH. Irrelevant since the long-unmaintained RH version of Lilo just works. > Its obsolete False. Might become true in future if Grub 2 becomes as reliable as Lilo, which currently seems unlikely with all the extra widgets being grafted on. > Nobody in Red Hat tests/qa's it Circular argument. Irrelevant since Lilo just works. Irrelevant, judging by the effort RH has spent over the years trying to get Grub up to snuff. > We can use the disk space for real packages Falsely assumes Lilo is not a real package. Contradicts previous RH statement that disk space is not an issue wrt Lilo. If disk space is an issue then drop Lilo's docs which aren't needed during Anaconda. > Its more productive to fix grub than import prehistoric baggage like lilo Falsely assumes Lilo is prehistoric baggage. Falsely assumes Lilo takes significant effort to import - just leave it in the Core. False on its face, as RH has worked to fix Grub for years whereas even the ancient version of Lilo that Redhat shipped just works. > lilo doesn't understand file system layouts Irrelevant - neither does vim or the TCP stack. Lilo boots reliably. That's all we want it to do. How does an alternative reliable boot loader hurt anything other than RH egos, particularly if hidden from newbies? How many times has Redhat helped a RHEL subscriber because Grub changed its concept of which device was which, or couldn't handle MD, or broke after a restore, or was used on uncertified hardware, or just mysteriously broke? Will Redhat drop Lilo from RHEL too, or is this just a measure to cripple Fedora? --Mike Bird