[Klug-general] grub vs grub2

[james morris]

I've got a few linux distros installed on my hdds. Most would install
grub, but some install grub2. Grub2 is the current bootloader on my
system.

This is just my opinion of course, but it seems that grub2 makes more
work of adding boot entries - I can no longer just edit a single file in
a single directory.

As far as booting goes, I am just an average home user, I don't think
grub2 is really worth the extra hassle that the new
modular-configuration-features bring. I'm certainly going to go back to
grub legacy.

some of the irritating problems i've been having with grub2:

(which i'm not asking for solutions to, i'm going to remove it)

grub2/debian-testing still insists that /dev/sda8 is kubuntu when it is
plainly the boot partition gentoo is using.

grub2/debian-testing (upon issuing sudo grub-mkconfig) compiles a huge
list of operating systems and kernels which streams down a full screen
xterm. despite the fact i have only three installs.

grub2/debian-testing when it comes to choosing a boot entry, ignores half
of the boot entries it actually found.

grub2/debian-testing has decided it will now tell me to "load the kernel
first" when i choose a boot entry from the menu.

grub2/debian-testing is actually far easier to just not bother
configuring and just enter 'c' at the boot menu for a command line and
type (hd0,8)/vm[tab] and i get the kernel i want to boot. then i type
boot and it boots.

it makes me laugh. grub legacy, i will welcome you back shortly!