Other than the change for changes sake, I can't see a reason for it. I am used to lilo and have had more problems with grub than lilo has ever given me. Besides I could not see how grub was better than lilo with out having to research the configuration and command syntax it uses.
Mostly I just don't want to have to learn how to use grub and some new editor just to make quick simple changes.
So basically, you didn't seen any improvement in grub because you chose not to learn anything about it. That's OK... it's a valid choice. I just want to be clear that it was indeed your choice, not a deficiency in the software. You have no knowledge of grub, and thus see no benefit. Fine.
I don't know about the licence issues RH claims to be at issue. It probably has somthing to do with the RHEL licensing, that conflicts with GPL or something like that, but that is just a guess. Other linux and BSD distributions don't seem to have a problem.
Now here, you show a remarkable disregard for truth and logic. I urge you to either think a little or research a little (or read the past three days worth of this thread) before spewing out such oddball accusations. Just wonderful how all the blame and cause is magically laid at Red Hat's door here... Please note:
1. Red Hat has consistently supported GPL and all they do is GPL. Why
would you think that RHEL licensing conflicts with GPL?2. Pine licensing does not allow anyone to distribute patches or modifications
to the package, so RH is not allowed to fix anything until UW does. Well
documented and verifiable, and also not acceptable to RH or to me.
3. Other distros _do_ have a problem with it. Go do your research. SUSE, for
example, does not include it on their CD's and has it in the "non-free" part
of their site.
4. It is Pine's license that conflicts with the GPL, not Red Hat's.
Sheesh.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
