Simplifying the Boot process for all PUP use: Clearing it UP

Message

linuxcbon · #16 Post by **linuxcbon** » Sat 23 Mar 2013, 19:10

And what about choice and freedom and diversity ? You want dictatorship ? Apply it to yourselves, not to the others.

Iguleder · #17 Post by **Iguleder** » Sat 23 Mar 2013, 19:33

You can always replace the boot loader the installer installed for you, exactly the same way some replace the pre-installed JWM and ROX-Filer with KDE.

Also, this suggestion is not very weird. Pretty much all distributions force you to use a certain boot loader. For instance, the Ubuntu installer doesn't ask you which boot loader you'd like to use - this is true for pretty much all distros. Most just use GRUB Legacy or GRUB; no questions.

Furthermore, if you have only one mature and stable boot loader (I guess that's the direction where UEFI support is going these days), chances you're going to consider switching to another are very low.

Finally, let's be honest: most people don't know what a boot loader is, anyway, so they won't be dissatisfied and won't feel restricted if the developers of their operating system, as professionals, rather than inexperienced end-users, pick the best boot loader and "force" them to use it.

Three well-explained points for one boot loader per architecture, TAKE THAT!

Q5sys · #18 Post by **Q5sys** » Sat 23 Mar 2013, 20:34

Iguleder wrote:You can always replace the boot loader the installer installed for you, exactly the same way some replace the pre-installed JWM and ROX-Filer with KDE.

Also, this suggestion is not very weird. Pretty much all distributions force you to use a certain boot loader. For instance, the Ubuntu installer doesn't ask you which boot loader you'd like to use - this is true for pretty much all distros. Most just use GRUB Legacy or GRUB; no questions.

Furthermore, if you have only one mature and stable boot loader (I guess that's the direction where UEFI support is going these days), chances you're going to consider switching to another are very low.

Finally, let's be honest: most people don't know what a boot loader is, anyway, so they won't be dissatisfied and won't feel restricted if the developers of their operating system, as professionals, rather than inexperienced end-users, pick the best boot loader and "force" them to use it.

Three well-explained points for one boot loader per architecture, TAKE THAT!

Straight and to the point as always Iguleder. Something I've always appreciated about your posts. Since you know WAY more about this stuff that I do... have you ever tried Das U-Boot at all? Or have you heard anything one way or the other about it?

Iguleder · #19 Post by **Iguleder** » Sat 23 Mar 2013, 20:54

Never used it myself.

I use extlinux everywhere, with ext4. It starts faster than GRUB under my machines - I don't need a boot menu, so it fits well.

extlinux is by far my favourite boot loader for x86 - I don't see any reason to use GRUB when there's extlinux combined with its VESA boot menu module. Lighter, easier to configure, smaller and easier to install on flash drives, memory cards, etc'.

Sky Aisling · #20 Post by **Sky Aisling** » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 21:24

Hello All, Puppy boot options?

#21 Post by **Flash** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 01:23

Those look more like blind Egyptian llamas to me.

tlchost · #22 Post by **tlchost** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 01:40

Flash wrote:Those look more like blind Egyptian llamas to me.

They moonlight as boot loaders...you know, it's a multi-skilled world these days.

Ted Dog · #23 Post by **Ted Dog** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 02:36

amigo wrote:I agree that it would be nice to use *any* grub rather than isolinux for LiveCD's. The problem is that grub-based iso's are just not as bootable as isolinux ones. The syslinux bootcode is more dependable.

I find the opposite is true, I've made boot loaders from both and grub legacy where NO change is made to menu.lst I can burn a single partition HD image directly into a bootable CD/DVD.

grub4dos is not anywhere equal to grub, it may act the same.

isolinux has one major advantage, hybrid mode, where a single iso file can be directly 'disc' copied on to a usb flash drive.

I think the better option is getting the idea of frugal install, fully explained to the novice, and easily setup in the most general way possible.

We all use it, almost to the point everybody expects puppylinux and even more so FatDog64 to be ran that way, but it remains a hands-on action each time.

Ted Dog · #24 Post by **Ted Dog** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 03:02

Hello All, Puppy boot options?

Did not notice how topical a photo can be, missed this the first couple of scrolls.

Puppies all made from boots.

tlchost · #25 Post by **tlchost** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 09:20

Ted Dog wrote: Puppies all made from boots.

Would it be safe to say that if the military adopts puppy, then we might hear phrases like:

Your Puppy wears combat boots?

greengeek · #26 Post by **greengeek** » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:29

Thanks GCMartin for kicking off this topic - I am learning quite a bit by following the thread. There are clearly many holes in my understanding, but I do have one contribution to make and it is this:

Not all hardware is the same - even when "in theory" one machine is exactly the same as another. I have one Acer netbook that simply will not boot via syslinux 4.04 (3.73 is fine...)

In my opinion any attempt to "standardise" methods may well leave some machines out in the cold due to intentional or unintentional hardware/firmware/bios design characteristics. One of the things I love about puppy is the vast range of creative ways people get around an issue, or achieve their end result. It is that creative, fragmented and "non-official" mindset that is both the major strength, and occasional weakness in Puppy's armour.

With UEFI it may eventually be a different story - it may well be that there will eventually only be one boot method that is tolerated by the hardware. I hope not this will not be the case, but I sense significant pressure coming on manufacturers to restrict what the user can do. I personally like variety. Vive la difference!

gcmartin · #27 Post by **gcmartin** » Mon 10 Mar 2014, 06:02

As systemd has been agreed, how will this impact Puppy Linux and as importantly, the boot process and boot managers?

There appears to be agreement between the big 4 Linux manufacturers (and others) on "systemd"!

And, is this the news that was part of the wait&see recommendations from last year?

Have we reached a point where we should consider booting ISOs as a reasonable approach to a singularity in booting where the concern for kernel and subsystem structures can be masked by simple direct ISO booting from CD/DVD/Blu-ray/USB/HDD?

Curious to whether all of this could be made consistent and simple.

mikeb · #28 Post by **mikeb** » Mon 10 Mar 2014, 11:21

hmm ...this is an example of why linux is not taken seriously in many quarters and continues to recieve only a tiny proportion of the userbase....inconsistancy....what will next weeks method be?

Meanwhile the likes of google take it to the masses in a hughly restrictive form.

I can't take it seriously either and gave up chasing the wind frantically changing and updating many moons ago..... I just want our machines to work and they do as it is and will continue to do so until something hopefully better comes along or it all grinds to a halt having evolved into something ugly and effectively useless with shiny buttons.

mike

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Simplifying the Boot process for all PUP use: Clearing it UP

Simplifying the Boot process for all PUP use: Clearing it UP

System Managers and "systemd"