Red Hat Is Hiring To Improve The Bootloader

[Anvil]

Until you mentioned - I did not know systemd boot system existed!
i mean, i am using systemd, and i load using grub2...

reason why Fedora dont use systemd-boot is im pretty sure its Shim related, Fedora only gets there certificate signatures from Microsoft on Grub2 only ( something like that ), i think someone was trying to get systemd-boot into F39 but i dont think it went to far

[Anvil]

where does it says that it is only grub2 developers?

Redhat being a Grub2 only EL, they wont have developers working on anything else other than Grub2

[polarathene]

The one thing that GRUB has, that UEFI (afaik) doesn't, is the option to just add/remove parameters on the fly, when booting (I think the keybinding is "e").

Both rEFInd and systemd-boot (both EFI boot managers) support this same feature. Except you get the parameters straight away, no need to navigate a larger GRUB config.

With rEFInd I can install that to a USB external disk and boot to that and it can scan disks at runtime for what is available to boot if I don't make any static config entries. Quite portable. Filesystem support can be improved by adding the extra EFI extension modules (which other EFI boot mangers could use too).

[cynic]

Redhat being a Grub2 only EL, they wont have developers working on anything else other than Grub2

oh, right!

that's exactly what a successful tech company does: focus only on what they do today and never ever invest on new products/technology/solution.

Hey, btw, have you seen their job offering to work on kernel 2.0.4, Gnome 2, Lilo and writing rc scripts to init the system?

neither do I.

[Anvil]

oh, right!

that's exactly what a successful tech company does: focus only on what they do today and never ever invest on new products/technology/solution.

Hey, btw, have you seen their job offering to work on kernel 2.0.4, Gnome 2, Lilo and writing rc scripts to init the system?

neither do I.

if Redhat were to use a Different bootloader in its EL, it'd get thorough Testing in Fedora before it got into RHEL

[cynic]

if Redhat were to use a Different bootloader in its EL, it'd get thorough Testing in Fedora before it got into RHEL

RH employee also contributes to Fedora...

[Anvil]

RH employee also contributes to Fedora...

a lot of them contribute to CentOS Stream also. Fedora only Uses Grub2 by Default

[cynic]

a lot of them contribute to CentOS Stream also. Fedora only Uses Grub2 by Default

yes, forgot it: Fedora TODAY uses Grub2, so let's use it forever and never ever ever look at the future.

[Rovano]

UEFI. Every now and then it happens to me that the EFI BIOS detects a bootloader on the disk, even though there isn't one. All you have to do is create an empty partition on the disk, preferably at the end of it. Maybe it's just a bad implementation by the BIOS manufacturer.
And then it stubbornly annoys you in the boot menu. You can delete it with whatever you want, edit it with any available tools, but after a reboot it's there again.

And the thing that freezes the most is the craziness around signing, although it's easy to get malware in there and you can't detect it with anything.

And I repeat that GUI does not equal UEFI. That has nothing to do with it.

[soulsource]

To be fair having your kernel on a FAT partition is probably a very bad idea... it should at *least* be something sane like EXT/EXT2/EXT3.

For years I've been using EasyBSD to load NeoGrub which chainloads syslinux from my partition table. IT's slightly convoluted but it avoids Linux / NT stepping on each other which is the real problem.

Now you've gotten me curious: Why is using a FAT partition a problem here?