Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Ive noticed a trend in most distro installations. Most of them default to grub as a bootloader. Now, the only time I have actually had grub working on my compuer ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Newbie rudie_rage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    133

    comparing bootloaders


    Ive noticed a trend in most distro installations. Most of them default to grub as a bootloader.

    Now, the only time I have actually had grub working on my compuer was way back when ubuntu installed it for me. No configuring, no nothing. It just installed, and it just worked.

    Now, after some time has gone by and some experience has been had, I tend to lilo. Not just for the obvious reason (I can actually make it work) but also because the configuration is quite simple to me. now simple is all relative, but I just find grub to be a little more complex than a bootloader needs be.

    All oppinions aside, grub seems to be more popular, and I was just wondering why. There must be a reason.

    So what are some of the pros/cons of both lilo and grub? I cant say i know much about the internals on how each work, so I'd like to learn a few more things about the techincal aspects of each. Why do you use the bootloader you do?
    Living the digital dream....
    Disclaimer: I may be wrong since I was once before.
    Breathe out so I can breathe you in ~~Everlong

  2. #2
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15
    lilo is good, it works, I know and trust it. 1 downside: whenever I feel the need to play with XEN, grub is required.
    So maybe on the next machine I'll start with grub

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •