grub vs grub2
 

On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote:
>> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
>> say how?
> Remove or comment out any "splashimage" directives from the config file.
I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere ("branding") reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions)

> Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is
> better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else.
>
> I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a
> configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by
> running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4
> and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago...
>
> I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as
> vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is
> totally unreasonable and impossible to justify.

I agree to you in a big part. Thanks.

Big companies like Microsoft or Apple are doing a thing i simply call
"Similarisation of features for new/unknowledged users", which always
goes in the reverse direction on long-term. Sample situation: Microsoft
Repair CD: You can select to partition your disk appropiate to how the
assistant will like it. You are being hid from all the details, as you wont
understand them any way.
Once you try to do something special, you get problems bigger than
without this 'improvement for new ones'. This is because less work is
being done to the detailed way of doing it, and more to the simple,
which is made to just do one or two things.
Essence: The system is hidden, you only see actions what you can
do (update-grub in our case) instead of the system. This is obviously
wrong because the system, the back-end, takes more than
the front-end. Now the front-end should represent the back-end in a
human readable form and not simplify to fit the least knowledged.

BUT, i guess (from what ive heard) grub2 is fine with editing it by
hand. And the command does really only assist in the simpliest
matter, only combines all actions you'd have to take yourself.
Thanks for the clearance.

(If you want to criticise the above big block of text, I always fail to
express myself well.)

grub vs grub2
 

You can't edit /etc/default/grub to customize how grub-mkconfig generates grub.cfg. Mint probably has update-grub like Ubuntu does which just allows you to use that command instead of grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg


On Feb 14, 2012 2:55 PM, "LK" <linuxrocksrulers@googlemail.com> wrote:


On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote:

>> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you

>> say how?

> Remove or comment out any "splashimage" directives from the config file.

I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere ("branding") reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions)




> Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is

> better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else.

>

> I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a

> configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by

> running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4

> and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago...

>

> I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as

> vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is

> totally unreasonable and impossible to justify.



I agree to you in a big part. Thanks.



Big companies like Microsoft or Apple are doing a thing i simply call

"Similarisation of features for new/unknowledged users", which always

goes in the reverse direction on long-term. Sample situation: Microsoft

Repair CD: You can select to partition your disk appropiate to how the

assistant will like it. You are being hid from all the details, as you wont

understand them any way.

* Once you try to do something special, you get problems bigger than

without this 'improvement for new ones'. This is because less work is

being done to the detailed way of doing it, and more to the simple,

which is made to just do one or two things.

* Essence: The system is hidden, you only see actions what you can

do (update-grub in our case) instead of the system. This is obviously

wrong because the system, the back-end, takes more than

the front-end. Now the front-end should represent the back-end in a

human readable form and not simplify to fit the least knowledged.



BUT, i guess (from what ive heard) grub2 is fine with editing it by

hand. And the command does really only assist in the simpliest

matter, only combines all actions you'd have to take yourself.

Thanks for the clearance.



(If you want to criticise the above big block of text, I always fail to

express myself well.)

grub vs grub2
 

LK writes:

> On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote:
> >> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
> >> say how?
> > Remove or comment out any "splashimage" directives from the config
> > file.
> I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and
> splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere ("branding")
> reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every
> product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine
> the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions)

Look in /etc/default/grub, there is one setting to switch to text mode.
GRUB_TERMINAL=console I think. Run update-grub to regenerate the grub.cfg
applying these settings.

BTW, this took me quite some time to find out. I had to find out about
the /etc/default/ directory first, and then I didn't use update-grub, but
grub-setup or something like that. So I like the old grub, where I simply
edit its config file, instead of having to find out which of the config
files I have to edit where and how to apply the changes.

Wonko

grub vs grub2
 

On 02/14/2012 02:59 PM, Michael Cook wrote:
> You can't edit /etc/default/grub to customize how grub-mkconfig
> generates grub.cfg. Mint probably has update-grub like Ubuntu does which
> just allows you to use that command instead of grub2-mkconfig -o
> /boot/grub/grub.cfg

grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) uses the scripts in /etc/grub.d
to generate the configuration file. It runs them in sequential order.
You can add, remove or rename the scripts in order to have them do what
you want.

You can also edit the 40_custom file, which will insert its contents
verbatim (sans its shebang and exec lines) into the configuration file
when grub(2)-mkconfig is run.

For the paranoid, you can put a failsafe boot option in that file.

--- Mike

--
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
--- Carveth Read, “Logic”

grub vs grub2
 

On 02/14/2012 02:53 PM, LK wrote:
> I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and
> splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere ("branding")
> reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every
> product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine
> the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions)

Comment out the GRUB_BACKGROUND line in /etc/default/grub.

You can also comment out the GRUB_GFXMODE line in order to use plain VGA
text mode.

--- Mikje

--
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
--- Carveth Read, “Logic”

grub vs grub2
 

What do you think of putting this conversation onto some website, as tutorial or clarification =P ?

grub vs grub2
 

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, LK <linuxrocksrulers@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What do you think of putting this conversation onto some website, as tutorial or clarification =P ?

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/msg_ee5c878773ac6ca9f49a33191654e3db.xml

--
:wq