Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies

[cr]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> David Horton Add to Address Book wrote:
> > I have one minor suggestion for improvement.  I think it would be a
> > good idea to change the name of the default configuration file to
> > something other than menu.lst.
>
> You're right. I came from RedHat to Debian and found a new world.
> (RedHat does call it grub.conf.)
>
> > Perhaps a better choice might be 'grub.conf' or 'boot.conf'.
>
> I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf
> And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand.
>
> 2 sen,
>
> Uwe
>

Well, I'd say, please call it _either_  grub.conf   _or_  menu.lst  but 
please don't add to the confusion by introducing yet another name for it!

As for where to put it, I'd have to disagree with the /etc idea  -   mainly 
because (IMO) it's most easily found if kept with the other GRUB files, as at 
present.    But also, GRUB is not technically a Unix application (as I 
understand), so UNIX rules about where to put things shouldn't necessarily 
apply.     GRUB can be (and on my system it is) resident on a FAT16 drive 
i.e. DOS/Windows.      I could create a 'etc' DOS directory just for 
grub.conf but why?    (I hasten to add, most of my system is Linux).

cr