Re:Red Hat and CentOS systems aren’t booting due to BootHole...
by badrabbit on Saturday August 01, 2020 @11:16AM
(#24021073)
I really do miss the simplicity of grub 0.97,keeping it as long as I can on my older boxes.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Red Hat and CentOS systems aren’t booting due to BootHole...
by kd913 on Saturday August 01, 2020 @02:01PM
(#24022547)
Grub simple?
If you want simple use systemd-boot. It's a hell of a lot leaner than grub ever was. The config is sane and doesn't require a billion additional modules to be installed.
It should be the default at this point, especially after all of this fiasco.
Re:Red Hat and CentOS systems aren’t booting due to BootHole...
by badrabbit on Sunday August 02, 2020 @10:54AM
(#24029070)
Next thing I will hear "Linux simple? Systemd-kernel is a lot leaner"
I think we have different definitions of lean and simple. After about a decade of Linux use I just found out Grub has modules thanks to you. You point it a disk and it installs. You edit the config file and that works. That's my experience it. I have had many debates with people who like systemd-isms , it's a fundamental difference in use case and philosophy.
Re:Red Hat and CentOS systems aren’t booting due to BootHole...
by kd913 on Sunday August 02, 2020 @01:04PM
(#24029877)
Systemd-boot is not originally designed in systemd philosophy.
It was originally gummiboot and got adopted into systemd project.
The explicit design goal was to be a minimal alternative to grub.