Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #159615 > unrolled thread

installing/using grub-legacy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  installing/using grub-legacy Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-22 00:10 +0200
    Re: installing/using grub-legacy David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 02:40 +0200
      Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:20 +0200
        Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:40 +0200
          Re: installing/using grub-legacy David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-23 19:10 +0200
            Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 20:10 +0200
              Re: installing/using grub-legacy Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-23 21:00 +0200
                Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 23:40 +0200
                  Re: installing/using grub-legacy Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-24 00:30 +0200
                    Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 00:50 +0200
                    Re: installing/using grub-legacy Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-24 09:30 +0200
                      Re: installing/using grub-legacy Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-24 10:20 +0200
                        Re: installing/using grub-legacy "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-10-24 11:20 +0200
                          Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:00 +0200
                            Re: installing/using grub-legacy Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-24 21:50 +0200
                              Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 00:00 +0200
                                Re: installing/using grub-legacy Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-10-25 11:50 +0100
                                  Re: installing/using grub-legacy Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 23:00 +0100
                                    Re: installing/using grub-legacy David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 23:50 +0100
                    Re: installing/using grub-legacy moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-24 18:40 +0200
                      Re: installing/using grub-legacy John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-10-24 19:10 +0200
    Re: installing/using grub-legacy Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-23 21:10 +0200
      Re: installing/using grub-legacy Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-24 03:40 +0200
        Re: installing/using grub-legacy Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-11-02 08:50 +0100
          Re: installing/using grub-legacy David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 15:50 +0100
            Re: installing/using grub-legacy Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 16:20 +0100
            Re: installing/using grub-legacy Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-11-02 20:50 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#159615 — installing/using grub-legacy

All my many installations are seriously multiboot, with typically no less
than 10 distro installations within a HD's first year of use, and upwards of
30 partitions as HD warranty becomes a distant memory.

In order to Keep It (multiboot) Stupidly Simple, most booting here is via
Grub 0.97.x. So as a first attempt to revert from grub2 to grub-legacy I've
been trying with a 64 bit intel CPU wheezy installation on host msi85. I did
apt-get purge of os-prober and everything I could identify as related to
grub2, rebooted, then tried apt-get install grub-legacy. That pulled in
grub-common, claiming to have installed both. But, nothing reached
/boot/grub/. On rpm systems, rpm -i of a grub-legacy package populates
/boot/grub/ with things like device.map, menu.lst, stage1, stage2 and
*stage*. Enabling use as bootloader on the / partition can be a simple matter
of creating a menu.lst and running setup from the grub shell. Thus, I rarely
make use of any grub scripts personally managing multiboot configuration.

Why didn't/doesn't apt-get put anything in /boot/grub/?

When I first tried to run grub from root shell in wheezy, first command
attempted, as suggested by grub's man page, is find /boot/grub/stage1. This
listed the first 3 instances, (hd0,0), (hd0,1), (hd0,7), then hung. I aborted
with Ctrl-C, then rebooted after disconnecting hd1, and tried again, reaching
same hang. Anyone know whether this hang would be a bug, known or previously
unknown, or some pre-configuration or configuration required in a debian that
isn't necessary in an rpm distro? I tried searching on bugs.debian.org, but
as a 15 year user of various Bugzillas, I'm not making much sense of how the
search by keyword(s) process is supposed to work on
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/. I get an error message "An error occurred.
Error was: You have to choose something to select by " but with no sign of
what mandatory select list I'm missing.

I tried running setup for wheezy from a grub> shell in openSUSE 13.1, but
attempting to chainload boot from it, it only does

	chainloader (hd0,14)+1
	GRUB Loading stage2..

and locks up the machine.

I tried repeating setup from LMDE2 Betsy like I tried in openSUSE, but it
hangs sooner than it did in wheezy, simply by hitting <return> after typing
find /boot/grub/stage1. I tried to chroot to wheezy from lmde to run grub
shell, but it hangs after showing instance 3 (hd0,7) same as run booting
wheezy directly.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#159619

Quoting Felix Miata (mrmazda@earthlink.net):
> All my many installations are seriously multiboot, with typically no less
> than 10 distro installations within a HD's first year of use, and upwards of
> 30 partitions as HD warranty becomes a distant memory.
> 
> In order to Keep It (multiboot) Stupidly Simple, most booting here is via
> Grub 0.97.x. So as a first attempt to revert from grub2 to grub-legacy I've
> been trying with a 64 bit intel CPU wheezy installation on host msi85. I did
> apt-get purge of os-prober and everything I could identify as related to
> grub2, rebooted, then tried apt-get install grub-legacy. That pulled in
> grub-common, claiming to have installed both. But, nothing reached
> /boot/grub/. On rpm systems, rpm -i of a grub-legacy package populates
> /boot/grub/ with things like device.map, menu.lst, stage1, stage2 and
> *stage*. Enabling use as bootloader on the / partition can be a simple matter
> of creating a menu.lst and running setup from the grub shell. Thus, I rarely
> make use of any grub scripts personally managing multiboot configuration.
> 
> Why didn't/doesn't apt-get put anything in /boot/grub/?

I can't think why apt would know of the existence of /boot, let alone
trample on anything that is already there. Imagine you had lilo on
your system and you'd decided to replace it with grub. So you install
grub and and it tramples on /boot...now your system in unbootable.

Once you've installed grub with apt, you can then run grub-install to
actually install the grub configuration itself.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159683

On Thursday 22 October 2015 01:31:44 David Wright wrote:
> Once you've installed grub with apt, you can then run grub-install to
> actually install the grub configuration itself.

Isn't that for GRUB-PC not GRUB-legacy?

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159684

On Friday 23 October 2015 17:15:50 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 01:31:44 David Wright wrote:
> > Once you've installed grub with apt, you can then run grub-install to
> > actually install the grub configuration itself.
>
> Isn't that for GRUB-PC not GRUB-legacy?
>
> Lisi

In case I got the names wrong or muddled: 

Isn't that for GRUB2 not GRUB1?

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159689

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
> On Friday 23 October 2015 17:15:50 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 October 2015 01:31:44 David Wright wrote:
> > > Once you've installed grub with apt, you can then run grub-install to
> > > actually install the grub configuration itself.
> >
> > Isn't that for GRUB-PC not GRUB-legacy?
> >
> > Lisi
> 
> In case I got the names wrong or muddled: 
> 
> Isn't that for GRUB2 not GRUB1?

The oldest Grub I still have installed is 1.99 so I
did download grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb just to
check before I posted. Redownloading that, I can see
grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb/deb://CONTENTS/usr/sbin
contains   grub-install 11620 Jan 29  2013   which
is a script including the lines:

# Usage: usage
# Print the usage.
usage () {
    cat <<EOF
Usage: grub-install [OPTION] install_device
Install GRUB on your drive.

  -h, --help              print this message and exit
  -v, --version           print the version information and exit
  --root-directory=DIR    install GRUB images under the directory DIR
                          instead of the root directory
  --grub-shell=FILE       use FILE as the grub shell
  --no-floppy             do not probe any floppy drive
  --force-lba             force GRUB to use LBA mode even for a buggy
                          BIOS
  --recheck               probe a device map even if it already exists

INSTALL_DEVICE can be a GRUB device name or a system device filename.

grub-install copies GRUB images into the DIR/boot directory specfied by
--root-directory, and uses the grub shell to install grub into the boot
sector.

Report bugs to <bug-grub@gnu.org>.
EOF
}

which looks pretty similar to Grub 2.02's man page:

GRUB-INSTALL(8)     System Administration Utilities     GRUB-INSTALL(8)
NAME
       grub-install - install GRUB to a device
SYNOPSIS
       grub-install [OPTION...] [OPTION] [INSTALL_DEVICE]
DESCRIPTION
       Install GRUB on your drive.

(grub-install is now an ELF.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159695

On Friday 23 October 2015 18:02:48 David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
> > On Friday 23 October 2015 17:15:50 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Thursday 22 October 2015 01:31:44 David Wright wrote:
> > > > Once you've installed grub with apt, you can then run grub-install to
> > > > actually install the grub configuration itself.
> > >
> > > Isn't that for GRUB-PC not GRUB-legacy?
> > >
> > > Lisi
> >
> > In case I got the names wrong or muddled:
> >
> > Isn't that for GRUB2 not GRUB1?
>
> The oldest Grub I still have installed is 1.99 so I
> did download grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb just to
> check before I posted. Redownloading that, I can see
> grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb/deb://CONTENTS/usr/sbin
> contains   grub-install 11620 Jan 29  2013   which
> is a script including the lines:
>
> # Usage: usage
> # Print the usage.
> usage () {
>     cat <<EOF
> Usage: grub-install [OPTION] install_device
> Install GRUB on your drive.
>
>   -h, --help              print this message and exit
>   -v, --version           print the version information and exit
>   --root-directory=DIR    install GRUB images under the directory DIR
>                           instead of the root directory
>   --grub-shell=FILE       use FILE as the grub shell
>   --no-floppy             do not probe any floppy drive
>   --force-lba             force GRUB to use LBA mode even for a buggy
>                           BIOS
>   --recheck               probe a device map even if it already exists
>
> INSTALL_DEVICE can be a GRUB device name or a system device filename.
>
> grub-install copies GRUB images into the DIR/boot directory specfied by
> --root-directory, and uses the grub shell to install grub into the boot
> sector.
>
> Report bugs to <bug-grub@gnu.org>.
> EOF
> }
>
> which looks pretty similar to Grub 2.02's man page:
>
> GRUB-INSTALL(8)     System Administration Utilities     GRUB-INSTALL(8)
> NAME
>        grub-install - install GRUB to a device
> SYNOPSIS
>        grub-install [OPTION...] [OPTION] [INSTALL_DEVICE]
> DESCRIPTION
>        Install GRUB on your drive.
>
> (grub-install is now an ELF.)

Thanks, David. :-)

 As you see, I am busily forgetting it.  But I could/should have done what you 
did. :-(

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159698

On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 19:02:29 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Friday 23 October 2015 18:02:48 David Wright wrote:
> > Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
> > >
> > > In case I got the names wrong or muddled:
> > >
> > > Isn't that for GRUB2 not GRUB1?
> >
> > The oldest Grub I still have installed is 1.99 so I
> > did download grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb just to
> > check before I posted. Redownloading that, I can see
> > grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb/deb://CONTENTS/usr/sbin
> > contains   grub-install 11620 Jan 29  2013   which
> > is a script including the lines:

[Snipped: the grub-install script for grub-legacy]

> Thanks, David. :-)
> 
>  As you see, I am busily forgetting it.  But I could/should have done what you 
> did. :-(

'apt-get download <package>' is a good way to get a package and examine
its contents. Nothing is installed and it can be deleted afterwards.

To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
time long past though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159704

On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:
> On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 19:02:29 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 23 October 2015 18:02:48 David Wright wrote:
> > > Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
> > > > In case I got the names wrong or muddled:
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that for GRUB2 not GRUB1?
> > >
> > > The oldest Grub I still have installed is 1.99 so I
> > > did download grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb just to
> > > check before I posted. Redownloading that, I can see
> > > grub-legacy_0.97-67_i386.deb/deb://CONTENTS/usr/sbin
> > > contains   grub-install 11620 Jan 29  2013   which
> > > is a script including the lines:
>
> [Snipped: the grub-install script for grub-legacy]
>
> > Thanks, David. :-)
> >
> >  As you see, I am busily forgetting it.  But I could/should have done
> > what you did. :-(
>
> 'apt-get download <package>' is a good way to get a package and examine
> its contents. Nothing is installed and it can be deleted afterwards.
>
> To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
> exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> time long past though.

Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an obsolete 
name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and GRUB2 however 
incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was incorrect/obsolete.  I was 
just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I succeeded.  Once you just 
say "GRUB", you have to know to which version of Debian one is referring, to 
know which GRUB is meant.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159707

On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 22:37:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:
> >
> > To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
> > exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> > documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> > time long past though.
> 
> Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an obsolete 
> name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and GRUB2 however 
> incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was incorrect/obsolete.  I was 
> just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I succeeded.  Once you just 
> say "GRUB", you have to know to which version of Debian one is referring, to 
> know which GRUB is meant.

It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream. GRUB has been the
default bootloader in Debian since Squeeze. How many years is that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159708

On Friday 23 October 2015 23:20:08 Brian wrote:
> On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 22:37:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:
> > > To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't
> > > really exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> > > documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> > > time long past though.
> >
> > Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an
> > obsolete name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and
> > GRUB2 however incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was
> > incorrect/obsolete.  I was just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I
> > succeeded.  Once you just say "GRUB", you have to know to which version
> > of Debian one is referring, to know which GRUB is meant.
>
> It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream. GRUB has been the
> default bootloader in Debian since Squeeze. How many years is that?

I would not disagree.  But you must admit that prior to being what you see as 
rude (and I'll not argue) I was being confusing (and confused).

And how many years is is  since LILO was the default bootloader??  Things 
sometimes die hard in Debian.

--------------------------------------
I just checked.  My system (Wheezy) says:

lisi@Tux-II:~$ aptitude show grub
No current or candidate version found for grub
Package: grub
State: not a real package
Provided by: grub-legacy

So my system thinks that grub is grub-legacy.  No wonder I am confused.

I then get:
lisi@Tux-II:~$ aptitude show grub-pc
Package: grub-pc
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Multi-Arch: foreign
Version: 1.99-27+deb7u2

And it was installed by the installer or updater....  When asked what I wanted 
I always said grub-legacy.  I simply didn't fight being given GRUB2, though I 
am sad to have it because I have not come to grips with it and am frightened 
of altering it.

So on my system, my system means GRUB1 by grub.  The only way to be 
unambiguous is to use the numbers.  You (and apparently upstream) say grub 
for GRUB2, my box says grub for GRUB1.

Simply saying grub, however polite, _is_ ambiguous.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159717

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:20:08PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 22:37:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
> > > exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> > > documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> > > time long past though.
> > 
> > Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an obsolete 
> > name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and GRUB2 however 
> > incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was incorrect/obsolete.  I was 
> > just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I succeeded.  Once you just 
> > say "GRUB", you have to know to which version of Debian one is referring, to 
> > know which GRUB is meant.
> 
> It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream. GRUB has been the
> default bootloader in Debian since Squeeze. How many years is that?

*cough* firefox *cough*

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159718

On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 20:21:58 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:20:08PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 22:37:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > 
> > > On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
> > > > exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> > > > documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> > > > time long past though.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an obsolete 
> > > name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and GRUB2 however 
> > > incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was incorrect/obsolete.  I was 
> > > just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I succeeded.  Once you just 
> > > say "GRUB", you have to know to which version of Debian one is referring, to 
> > > know which GRUB is meant.
> > 
> > It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream. GRUB has been the
> > default bootloader in Debian since Squeeze. How many years is that?
> 
> *cough* firefox *cough*

A legality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159721

Hi,

various people wrote:
> ... > [GRUB, GRUB Legacy, GRUB1, GRUB2, GRUB-PC]
Brian wrote:
> > > It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream.

Upstream offers the current names "GRUB" = "GRUB 2" for versions
above 1.0 and calls the old versions 0.XY "GRUB Legacy".
  https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/

The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
the differences between both GRUBs.
"GRUB-PC" seems to stem from Debian binary package "grub-pc"
for BIOS/x86 in contrast to e.g. "grub-efi-arm64". Those are
all made from GRUB2 sources since quite a while.

I write "GRUB2" and "GRUB-Legacy" to avoid ambiguity.
The "-" is added to make clear that "Legacy" is part of the name.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159723

On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
> the differences between both GRUBs.

No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159740

On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 11:52:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
> > the differences between both GRUBs.
> 
> No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.

Inventive. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159743

On Saturday 24 October 2015 20:45:25 Brian wrote:
> On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 11:52:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > > The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
> > > the differences between both GRUBs.
> >
> > No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.
>
> Inventive. :)

That is actually what it is in my case.  I could say GRUB 0.97-67 if you 
prefer.  I say KDE3, KDE4, GNOME3 etc too.  Rounded to whole number in every 
case.  GRUB 2 is actually GRUB 1.99-27+deb7u2 in Wheezy.  1 and 2 just seem 
so much simpler in conversation.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159755

On 2015-10-24, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 October 2015 20:45:25 Brian wrote:
>> On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 11:52:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> > On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>> > > The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
>> > > the differences between both GRUBs.
>> >
>> > No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.
>>
>> Inventive. :)
>
> That is actually what it is in my case.  I could say GRUB 0.97-67 if you 
> prefer.  I say KDE3, KDE4, GNOME3 etc too.  Rounded to whole number in every 
> case.  GRUB 2 is actually GRUB 1.99-27+deb7u2 in Wheezy.  1 and 2 just seem 
> so much simpler in conversation.

https://wiki.debian.org/Grub

> Lisi
>
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159781

On Sunday 25 October 2015 10:43:27 Curt wrote:
> On 2015-10-24, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 October 2015 20:45:25 Brian wrote:
> >> On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 11:52:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >> > On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> >> > > The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
> >> > > the differences between both GRUBs.
> >> >
> >> > No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.
> >>
> >> Inventive. :)
> >
> > That is actually what it is in my case.  I could say GRUB 0.97-67 if you
> > prefer.  I say KDE3, KDE4, GNOME3 etc too.  Rounded to whole number in
> > every case.  GRUB 2 is actually GRUB 1.99-27+deb7u2 in Wheezy.  1 and 2
> > just seem so much simpler in conversation.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Grub

OK  GRUB v1 and GRUB v2  I'm happy with that.  That is suitably unambiguous 
and simple.  I'll use that in future.  

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159782

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
> On Sunday 25 October 2015 10:43:27 Curt wrote:
> > On 2015-10-24, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday 24 October 2015 20:45:25 Brian wrote:
> > >> On Sat 24 Oct 2015 at 11:52:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:13:51 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > >> > > The name "GRUB1" seems to be an invention of users discussing
> > >> > > the differences between both GRUBs.
> > >> >
> > >> > No.  It is its version number, to the nearest whole number.
> > >>
> > >> Inventive. :)
> > >
> > > That is actually what it is in my case.  I could say GRUB 0.97-67 if you
> > > prefer.  I say KDE3, KDE4, GNOME3 etc too.  Rounded to whole number in
> > > every case.  GRUB 2 is actually GRUB 1.99-27+deb7u2 in Wheezy.  1 and 2
> > > just seem so much simpler in conversation.
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Grub
> 
> OK  GRUB v1 and GRUB v2  I'm happy with that.  That is suitably unambiguous 
> and simple.  I'll use that in future.

I think you've caved in unnecessarily. GRUB1 and GRUB2 are good terms.
GRUB2 is what took over from PUPA. It's a new architecture, not just a
new version.

"GRUB1" was never used AFAICT until GRUB2 arrived; but it wouldn't be:
it's a retronym, like "Old Penny". Who ever said that before 1971.

For the developers, who have virtually washed their hands of GRUB1,
talking about "GRUB" is fine. *They* know what they're talking about,
and it *ain't* Grub Legacy (aka GRUB1).

For support, which is what we are, using an unqualified "GRUB" is just
one more way of adding ambiguity to every † question and answer that
employs it because GRUB1 and GRUB2 are both still around and used.
(I hadn't realised there were people like Felix who love it so much
and are so keen to champion its cause.)

I'm happy for people to be courteous to the upstream developers:
For GRUB2, delete the "2" in your email.
For GRUB1, delete the email and save your breath.

† almost every. In my earlier email, I had checked that what I wrote
applied to both GRUB1&2 so it didn't really matter, except that had I
made that clear, we might have avoided this whole subthread...Sorry!

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159737

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:20:08 +0100, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri 23 Oct 2015 at 22:37:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 23 October 2015 19:51:17 Brian wrote:  
> > >
> > > To be pedantic: GRUB2 and GRUB1 don't exist in Debian. They don't really
> > > exist under those names on the GNU website either or in the
> > > documentation. It is GRUB or GRUB-legacy. People like harking back to a
> > > time long past though.  
> > 
> > Yes, I do know that - see my first email.  But GRUB-PC is also an obsolete 
> > name - and at least you understood what I meant by GRUB1 and GRUB2 however 
> > incorrect the nomenclature - and I did know it was incorrect/obsolete.  I
> > was just trying to be unambiguous.  In which I succeeded.  Once you just 
> > say "GRUB", you have to know to which version of Debian one is referring,
> > to know which GRUB is meant.  
> 
> It is a courtesy to use the names used by upstream. GRUB has been the
> default bootloader in Debian since Squeeze. How many years is that?

Was there a similar outcry over GRUB superseding LILO as there was over systemd
superseding sysvinit?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web