I noticed that most of the Slackware users use LILO as their boot loader. My feel is that GRUB is more powerful and more capable than LILO. Why is that GRUB less popular among Slackware users? Most of the Debian users go with GRUB.

cos most people using slack has already used lilo for a loooong time ...

btw I dont really care using LILO or GRUB ... I mean as long as I can boot into my system thats fine

cos i know how to secure lilo and configure it and all that and i dont have the time to learn grub is my reason

I think that's a question of tradition. In the begining was LILO, nowa days LILO is still there.
I know that GRUB is more powerful and flexible but the majority of Slack fans are using only Slack on their machines so why installing GRUB (vhich fits best a computer with more than 2 OSes) when LILO is enough.
I don't think that Slack will ever change from LILO to other boot loader and in a way is good that anytime you can find a distro as in the beginning.

Is there still a 1024 cylinder limit when using lilo?

With the newer versions after 21.3 no.

Both these bootloaders handle partition names differently, and someone who's familiar with one might find the other confusing. Personally, I prefer LILO because it's much easier to configure compared to GRUB. And I sure as hell don't need pretty bootup screens and whatnot... so one less motivational factor to use GRUB.

i like slackware cause when i install i can tell it not to load lilo not do the lilo setup during setup ... boot off the cd download grub and install it. then i dont have to remember to rerun lilo everytime i change a kernel and since i use a boot partition i dont have to link to the /boot/kernelfile on the root just so i can rerun lilo ... case in point i dont think it really matters.

At the time I was looking at grub, it didn't support booting of a ataraid RAID 0 disk set. Lilo did support it at that time. So the choice was simple for me.
Lilo does what it should do, no need to get into the all different grub configuration here

Because LILO is fancy .....

LOOK HERE http://www.gamers.org/~quinet/lilo/

It always fun to see people face
when I boot my laptop on a presentation

i do not see where u get the whole "grub is more powerful" idea; they both do the same thing, just they handle things differently but a user will never know that unless he digs for the info or reads it somewhere

i normally used what was default; in redhat it was grub, then i went to mandrake but was scared of a new bootloader, so i kept grub; then i went to slack and had a go with lilo and i liked it much better because it was straightforward and the .conf file seemed more simple in layout

also, i liked the vga features that lilo supports and i have yet to find a way that grub can manage to do it as well as lilo

the biggest gripe i have with grub is that it DoEs NoT install itself directly to the mbr, rather it reads from the config file at boot, so the /boot partition much be a primary partition and i do not want to do that (since a single hdd can only have 4 primaries, i do not have space for another)
since lilo is directly installed to the mbr, it does not need to read anything except what is in the mbr, so the /boot does not need to be in a primary partition

Not. I use grub which is installed in the mbr, but does not use a primary partition. My grub install is on /dev/hda11.
Why do I use grub? I don't have to run /sbin/lilo when I change the configuration. All I do is mount hda11, edit /mnt/hda11/boot/grub/menu.lst to reflect the new kernel or whatever was changed and reboot. When you run lilo, you have to be booted in the distro that lilo is installed in, yes? So if you want to make changes don't you have to reboot to that distro, make your changes, run /sbin/lilo, then reboot? Also, grub was first to get around the 1024 limit, and I got used to it.

umm, grub is more powerful, IMHO as
1) you can edit the mbr boot commands if you have made a change and forgotten to edit grub stuff

2) lilo still does not have a pause function to allow extra stuff like special modules or pix or whatever at boot. Both have timeout but thats a wait command before loading the default kenrnel.

not in attempt to start a "boot-loader war" but:

i don't know how u managed to let grub get away with a logical partition, i certainly have not and i do not intend to try again (i have tried before and it was a pain to get things sorted out)

wow, it takes a whole 2 reboots to get lilo working correctly... well unless u have lilo as a boot loader in all of your distros so it makes no difference where i want to run lilo

also, what is this timeout thing of which you speak? i can pass options to the kernel from lilo; there is definitely a boot prompt and it is not hidden like it is in grub
*edit: lilo pauses when u press a button on your keyboard

*excuse the semi-harsh tone for the above (it should not have sounded harsh)

basically, use whatever boot loader u feel comfortable with; if u feel that it is a pain to have to run lilo every time u make a change to lilo.conf or that lilo is not naturally pretty, go with grub

however, one advantage to having to run lilo is that you choose when u want to change the boot loader's config and let the .conf file wait until u want to change it
i do this because i sometimes add extra commands to the file that i know i will forget later, but then i come here to LQ to clarify them, and when i get everything sorted out, i will probably have forgotten that command but it will still be in lilo.conf and all i have to do is run lilo and all is well

make the choice, don't let us sway u one way or the other; normally whatever comes default is probably the best for your distro; neither one really has an "advantage" over the other


*back to the topic.... grub is not popular simply because lilo has just been around that much longer and most distros prefer it as default (i have only seen redhat to use grub as default) so most people start with lilo and stick with it; also compiling the kernel is supposed to be best with lilo (this is just something i have read somewhere)

I have grub installed on logical partitions on 2 computers with no problems. Can someone else confirm or deny this? I've used grub since caldera days. Part of the reason I bought it was awareness of the 1024cyl limit. I have win me, mandrake, debian 3.0, libranet 2.8 and 2.8.1 (twice) on my drive, all except win me on logical partitions, and all boot from grub on hda11. On my other box with win xp, the setup is similar. I don't have a seperate /boot partition on either.

I use lilo on my debian box (other machine) with no problems, also, but when I have lots of installs that change often, I like grub.