syslinux is designed to load linux from dos boot disks; or from a pxe bootrom or a cd. It is not designed for hard disk installation. They use syslinux on the initial boot disk so you can copy a new kernel onto the disk under windows or dos; and reboot and have the new kernel used with no regeneration of the map file. Lilo remembers where your kernel is on disk so you need to rerun the map installer when any of this changes. Grub is smarter and can read filesystems given the correct stage 1.5 loader; it can also decompress gzip files and the like but is still under development. Redhat uses it as the default boot loader now; and many have had success with it. Most people still use lilo under Debian and that is what i recommend for hard disk booting. syslinux is nice to make a quick and dirty boot disk that can load a linux kernel and take command line arguments. On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 09:12:53PM -0700, Steve Holmes wrote: > I faintly recall some discussion on this subject before on this list > but I can't remember the outcome of it. What are the pros and cons of > using syslinux instead of lilo? I've used lilo for years without any > real problems. I'm looking into Debian and I notice the boot disks > have syslinux on them but the write ups for Debian imply that lilo is > the official boot loader so I'm a tad confused at the moment:). > > Any ideas? > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > -- Kerry Hoath: kerry at gotss.net kerry at gotss.eu.org or kerry at gotss.spice.net.au ICQ: 8226547 msn: kerry at gotss.net Yahoo: kerryhoath at yahoo.com.au
