grub, grub2, lilo? BING, GAG, gujin syslinux ... ?
 

Hello :)

What are the pros and cons of the many bootloaders? (Wikipedia list of bootloaders)

Why do so may distros come with grub, grub2 or lilo?

This follows an earlier thread which attracted only one reply (thanks jhw).

Best

Charles

Probably because we like what we're used to and know how to use, even developers. I'm happy to do things with Fedora's Grub, but my heart sinks if I have to tackle Salix's Lilo. As for Grub 2, I just don't want to think about it!

Some distro's MUST use a version. Not sure that is a pro or con.

Some of them have been around for decades to get past some very old limits.

How so, jefro?

I tried GAG in my early distrohopping days, triple-booting (XP + 2 linuxes (linices?)). Seem to remember it was OK.
Aww! C'mon! It's not that bad. :)

Thanks Brian :)

From GAG's tarball's instructions.html:

BEFORE INSTALLING GAG

If you have an operating system which needs a boot loader (like Linux or BSD, which needs GRUB), you must install it in the SuperBlock of the root partition. With GRUB, just type from a command line (as root):

grub-install /dev/root_partition

Being root_partition your root partition, of course. An example: if /dev/sda7 is your root partition, just type:

grub-install /dev/sda7

With windows there's no special care.

So GRUB or lilo are still required :(

With windows there's no special care! Direct translation from the Spanish?

Couldn't remember the details about installing/using GAG. If lilo is good enough for Slackware, it's good enough for me. :)

I don't get it. What is the point of having an extra bootloader when you still have to use a different bootloader which can do the job for itself?

Anyways, I have used GRUB, GRUB2, lilo and {sys,ext,iso,pxe}linuxand when it comes to configuration the only one I really don't like is GRUB2. Why should someone learn scripting for a simple bootloader configuration. The other bootloaders are straight forward to configure, nowadays I prefer lilo, just because it comes with Slackware and it works.
I wonder if lilo will be used more often again in future because of its BSD license, no UEFI Secure Boot with GRUB2 due to the GPL V3 license.

I use BING, I like it because it does what jefro mentioned, overcome limitations. I have all primary partitions (over ten on one drive), no chainloading, no fear of not being able to boot a distribution down the chain when a PBR up the chain is hooped. And best of all, it has wicked partition imaging capability, more partition tools than any other partition manager I have found. Only thing is, it's not free, but I know I won't be able to take the money with me later, it was a wise investment to make multi-booting stressless.
If one were to use Windows boot loader to boot Linux, grub or lilo still needs to be installed in the PBR (partition boot sector) of the Linux /boot partition.
With grub2, not sure about legacy grub, you need to force it to install grub in the PBR as such: grub-install /dev/sda7 --force, for some reason, grub2 maintainer designed it in such a way to make you think it should be the only boot loader used by forcing users to just install it to the MBR and not PBR as you will get an error without the --force option. I will never give up BING, I will give up Linux first if I am not allowed to use a boot loader of my choice.

+1 to that. Have just found out that BootIt Bare Metal doesn't load Linux directly :(

It looks like I'm headed for lilo ... Patrick has his reasons :)

I still don't see the point in a bootloader that needs a different bootloader to work. The Windows loader is out of question here, it is simply not intended to boot anything than Windows (also it works to chainload to a different bootloader).

Probably because you are the type that knocks it before trying it. You'll never appreciate the advantages of a feature rich boot loader/partition manager suite without trying it, you'll just do what you are doing now, knock it.
I have used grub exclusively on some of my units, I have used Windows boot loader on some of my units, I have used BING exclusively on some of my units. Unlike yourself, I do not condone using any of them, I only point out advantages and disadvantages and my preferece which is derived from experience in use, not self derived analogy.

At first, I wasn't talking about your BING boot-manager, but, as you can see in the quote I have made in my first post, about the GAG bootloader and especially this statement:Meaning that this specific bootloader is not able to boot a system without the help of another bootloader, which is pretty pointless for a bootloader, because that is what the purpose of a bootloader is: booting a system.
That is like buying a car that can only be driven by pulling it with a different car instead of giving it the ability to move itself with a motor, which makes a car pretty useless.
Or using a text editor that doesn't work if you have not at least one other text editor installed: pointless.

Has nothing to do with experience or condoning things, it is just about a program that is not able to do what is was intended for.

What you fail to realize:

When you use Grub boot loader to boot Windows boot loader, you still use two boot loaders, when you use Grub to boot darwin, you are still using two boot loaders, etc. etc. etc. One way or another every bootable partition requires a boot loader. Windows partition do not have Grub installed to boot it if Grub is in the MBR, nor does Mac OS have grub installed in it's PBR. It don't matter which boot loader is the main boot loader in the MBR(s) of a multi-boot system, they all do the same thing and just pass it on to the partition you select. I do not prefer BING for it's booting capabilities, I prefer it for reasons mentioned in prior posts.

Generally speaking "legacy" Grub will install itself without a murmur. This doesn't seem to be so in the latest Debian version at the moment: it gives an error "unable to read stage1 correctly"
If only the Grub devs would put more time into maintaining Grub1 and less into disparaging it.