is there an advantage to running grub over lilo? i run a single boot linux system so im not dual booting but ive heard that updating the kernel with grub is easier than with lilo.

It makes almost no difference. Unless you have a problem with your current bootloader, there is no reason to change.

I updated my kernel yesterday night (using rpm's : much much easier...) and i had no problem with lilo.
I had to edit a few lines in lilo.conf - took about 2 min.

the only time ive ever used grub was with redhat and thats because its the default bootloader. ive tried to install it on my slackk system but i just couldnt get it to work, lilo to me is much easier.

There's no real advantage of one over another. GRUB, as far as i'm aware, can be made more "pretty" than LILO, although I have never myself worried about it.

I personally find lilo's conf file to be easier to understand and modify, and running lilo after a kernel compile always seems to do what I expect. The menu is only visible for a couple of seconds anyway so I wouldn't worry what you use - just whatever works for you I guess.

If you are finding yourself staring at a boot menu as a timer ticks down, or having to press enter to boot your distribution, try reducing the time in the conf file to something more "friendly"

IMO grub does have some serious advantages over LILO (and I'm saying this as a long-time LILO user). First, you don't have to reload it whenever you make a change to the config file. Second the grub console can be extremely helpful if something happens to your config. You can basically rebuild a config file without even booting into rescue mode.

That said, do the advantages justify changing if LILO is working for you as-is? *shrug* Maybe not. I just wanted to point out that there are some important differences.