Hi guys, i finally got Slackware 13.37 last night and will be installing it on my laptop either tonight or tomorrow. I've been listening a lot to Chess Griffins two podcast about Slackware. I've barely used linux, just a little Ubuntu and OpenSuse, During this time, i did little editing to the Grub file which just involved me copying and pasting stuff from a step by step tutorial. I don't know the differences between the two boot loaders besides the name, i was wondering if their's any advantage to going with one over the other.

Thanks again guys

The advantage with Lilo is... it is the default boot loader for Slackware. I would stick with Lilo for that reason alone.

Advantages to LILO

• Easy to add a boot screen
• Slackware setup can install automatically

Disadvantages to LILO

• Changes boot block on every configuration change
• May not install on some fake RAID
• Configuration update needed for kernel change

Advantages to GRUB 0.97 (legacy)

• Can install using "native" BIOS only boot floppy or CD
• Works with Fake RAID or other BIOS dependent installation
• Boot block not altered on configuration changes
• No configuration update needed for kernel change

Disadvantages to GRUB 0.97 (legacy)

• Difficult to add a boot screen
• Not automatically installed by Slackware setup

GRUB 2 (not the legacy version) is more complicated than GRUB legacy and also suffers from some of the limitations of LILO. However, GRUB 2 supports some additional features that may be needed on some hardware.

I use GRUB legacy for two reasons. First, I have a Fake RAID controller and have not been able to make LILO install properly. Second, I copied my Linux partition boot sector into a file to chain from Windows. With LILO I would have to update that file after every configuration change. With GRUB I only have to copy the file when I change my partitioning on the disk. I also like the fact that I don't have to change the GRUB menu or do anything after a kernel update. As long as "vmlinuz" is a soft link to the kernel, or I keep the file name the same it will boot. I have links like "vmlinuz-old" and "vmlinuz-known" for alternate kernel versions, and then I just change the soft links as needed. My boot menu has the previous (old) version and a known good version along with the normal kernel.

For Slackware I recommend using LILO unless there is some reason why you can't. If you want to have the Windows boot loader start first, then use GRUB to avoid updating the boot sector file frequently. Only use GRUB 2 if you need it to support something unusual.

The advantage to grub is that you don't have to re-run lilo every time your kernel changes. You can edit the grub boot config files to fix anything that you screw up and successfully boot so that you can fix your grub boot config files. If your setup is such that you can't simply boot using the installation CD, then that's pretty important.

I'll just add to the above that if you are using slackware64, do some research before thinking about grub. It doesn't play nice. I hear grub2 is a little better.

I've never found a need for grub... guess I've never needed / wanted a "fake raid"

If lilo's good enough for Slackware, it's good enough for me.

There is also syslinux (extlinux) which has none of lilo's or grub's disadvantages.
Its only disadvantages are that it supports only ext* and btrfs, and that you'll have to configure it yourself. Its the best of both worlds.

For me it is a simple decision. The lilo boot loader has never failed me. PV likes lilo and I trust his judgement.

If you are installing Slackware then the "setup" program will do the LILO configuration for you.

and it supports GPT!

i use burg currently. its just like grub2 except you can make themes for it.

I'm using GRUB (legacy) with Slackware 64-bit. The only "not playing nice" issue is that I have to install the multilib packages to run or compile the 32-bit GRUB package. Of course, one does not have to actually "run" GRUB in Linux to install it. That's one thing that I like about GRUB legacy.

Erik, it's also possible to build grub (0.97) statically on Slackware64 using CFLAGS="-static". That way you don't need the multilib packages.

Edit: No, that's not right. You still have to build it on 32-bit Linux. But I'm using it in Slackware64 without multilib packages.

There is nothing "right" or "wrong" with either boot loader. The distinction is what each user wants or needs.

Long ago I started using GRUB 0.97 for three reasons.

1. Lilo has a 15 character limitation in titles. On a system with only one operating system that likely is not a problem. With multi-boot systems, or with multiple kernels for one system in testing, that limitation is mildly frustrating. Kind of like the old 8.3 naming convention.

2. I can add multiple kernel versions for testing and not worry about the original settings.

3. To me GRUB seems more palatable for multi-boot systems. Additional systems can be installed to alternate partitions without touching the original boot options. That is, after installing a new system the user can still boot into the original system without changing anything. I do all of my testing these days in a virtual machine, but when I started tinkering with distros many years ago that was not an option for me and GRUB made more sense for what I was doing.

I keep using GRUB nowadays out of habit.

Building on the topic, the question remains of why Slackware, grub is not included as an option during installation, in addition to lilo?

I hope to understand from what I wrote :-)

Saying that lilo is default Slackware does not make sense