Originally posted by FeRD_NYC
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora May Make It Easier To Switch To systemd-boot, Making A GRUB-Free System
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kreijack View Post
I use sd-boot, and for me it works flawless; the only thing that I miss is that this setup doesn't allow to have kernel and initrd in the /boot directory, and often I fill the ESP one and I had to empty it. This is annoying. Having a /boot in the root solved this issue (or the empty is less often required).
[1] https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifi...ootLoaderSpec/
- Likes 1
Comment
-
My Fedora system takes up 11.26 GB archinstall with systemd-boot takes up just above 14 GB. I know it's not an issue. But on a pure Linux system you only get nice menus + something you can set up by hand.
Systemd-boot can really chew through a lot of disk space depending on what you're doing of cause.
Comment
-
Originally posted by iavael View Post
It actually does. If you you set boot partition type according to BootLoaderSpec[1], then it would work fine.
[1] https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifi...ootLoaderSpec/
And anyway my comments was about NOT having a separate /boot partition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kreijack View Post
It is not a problem of sd-boot, but more of the infrastructure around that.
I think that around grub there are scripts that automate the passage:
- do a snapshot -> updated the grub.cfg
But nothing prevent to do the same with sd-boot.
I think that is the classic problem: until a distribution starts to used a tool, the infrastructure doesn't grow enough to satisfy the all needing. Godd or bad, this fedora choice will help the grows of the infrastructure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by woddy View Post
Yes, it will most likely help, but many distros support multiple architectures, while Grub supports almost everything, systemd boot doesn't, this is the main reason to still use Grub and this is the reason why Grub is default on almost all distributions. It's hard to replace something that works in all use cases with something as limiting as sb.
ARM -> uboot or eufi
RISCV -> uboot or uefi
POWERPC -> yaboot
MIPS -> I don't remeber :-)
X86 -> UEFI from last ~10 years
The point is that, with the exception of the X86 legacy bios systems (which are older than 10 years), all the other systems have bootloader quite advanced, with capability to understand filesystem. In these case grub2 is overkilling.
Grub was great when the PC BIOS based where the majority. Now sd-boot (or a uboot or equivalent properly configured) are good enough.
Of course for advanced users or case (like booting ext4 over raid over luks), grub2 is still a good choice. But for all other cases it is only "another OS" between UEFI and LINUX.
The point is: in the past when the Bios was very... Basic grub2 was needed. Now when the EUFI allows things that grub2 cannot (like secure boot[*]), grub2 is becoming more a problem than an opportunity for the majority of the cases. So I understand that the wiliness of some distribution to get rid of the complexity of grub.
-[*] Technically grub2 allow secure boot, but to me it seems only to increase the surface attack without providing any benefits.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by kreijack View Post
Today, is it really so ?
ARM -> uboot or eufi
RISCV -> uboot or uefi
POWERPC -> yaboot
MIPS -> I don't remeber :-)
X86 -> UEFI from last ~10 years
The point is that, with the exception of the X86 legacy bios systems (which are older than 10 years), all the other systems have bootloader quite advanced, with capability to understand filesystem. In these case grub2 is overkilling.
Grub was great when the PC BIOS based where the majority. Now sd-boot (or a uboot or equivalent properly configured) are good enough.
Of course for advanced users or case (like booting ext4 over raid over luks), grub2 is still a good choice. But for all other cases it is only "another OS" between UEFI and LINUX.
The point is: in the past when the Bios was very... Basic grub2 was needed. Now when the EUFI allows things that grub2 cannot (like secure boot[*]), grub2 is becoming more a problem than an opportunity for the majority of the cases. So I understand that the wiliness of some distribution to get rid of the complexity of grub.
-[*] Technically grub2 allow secure boot, but to me it seems only to increase the surface attack without providing any benefits.
Comment
-
Originally posted by woddy View Post
As for systemd-boot, my problem with it is that I can't boot Btrfs snapshots, I don't know if that has changed today, but until a while ago it wasn't possible.
This is a big limitation for me.
Comment
Comment