Re: Support for older versions (Was: Breaking out of menu on "live disk", repairing grub)

[Simon Hobson]

Felix Miata wrote:
>Often times there are broader implications than those that are obvious. 
>Decades ago I learned Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, then migrated to Quattro Pro for 
>DOS via its support of a 1-2-3 based menu system. QPro even today does what 
>it did then exactly the same today, which is exactly what I need, including 
>lack of need to adapt or unlearn just to keep on doing what I'm already 
>doing. Modern spreadsheets may or may not be able to do as well or better, 
>just like Grub2 may be able to do more or better, but the fact that they do 
>their jobs without requiring _any_ investment in learning or unlearning is 
>reason enough stick with the status quo. If and when someday something the 
>old can't support becomes must have is soon enough to make the switch. By 
>then maybe Grub2 will have stabilized and matured into a non-moving target 
>with fewer docs that conflict according to distro source and/or release 
>version.

Here's a thing though.
You can stick with the original Grub. Absolutely no-one is forcing you to use 
Grub 2, there are no licence issues, activiation servers gone away, or any of 
that. So if you want to use Grub 1, then just carry on and keep using it.
The source code won't have magically disappeared from the face of the planet.
Just don't expect people to actively support it when they've moved on.

>Though the current Grub2 has a v2.0 moniker, I, like many, consider it v1.0 
>caliber software, marginally out of beta. Reading here and elsewhere I'm 
>familiar with various issues that frustrate users, both those who are new to 
>multiboot and bootloaders and those familiar with them. Such writings 
>reinforce my perception that maturity suited to my comfort has yet to be 
>reached.
>
>Automagic like grub-mkconfig isn't always what it's cracked up to be, 
>particularly to those like myself who prefer working behind the pretty 
>curtain and/or avoiding black-box processes. I'm dealing with enough alpha 
>and beta software already, and choose to avoid this particular one, at least 
>for the foreseeable future, possibly long enough that need here for any 
>bootloader at all has expired.

IMO that's insulting and disrespectful to the developers. It may have issues, 
and is harder to use than the older version, but IMO it's pretty robust. As 
previously discussed, the reason for it getting harder to use is because it's 
being required to handle ever more complex requirements. AFAIK, in Windows, you 
can't create a soft raid volume, manage the space with a logical volume 
manager, and then boot into an OS installed on a logical volume within the soft 
raid volume - you can with Grub 2.

That it doesn't work as you want it to isn't grounds for caling it beta quality.

Plus, Grub does still have an interactive CLI. If you want to do it yourself 
then simply ignore the scripts and do it by hand.