[c0l0]

... can you really fault software that has "Grand" and "Unified" right there in its name for trying to be just that? The number of systems supported by GRUB is really impressive, the number of special-sauce features supported (filesystems, RAID levels, snapshots, etc.) downright staggering. And if you don't like it, there's plenty of alternative, simpler options with a narrowere focus. I use systemd-boot on most non-Debian (which supports A LOT of other platforms, mind you) x86 EFI boxen of mine.

GRUB might be an unnecessary complexity for a number of use cases, but it's a solution that strives towards being universal (which is also a goal of Debian). I think it comes rather close, and I am happy it exists. Learning you way around it for an hour or two will yield payoffs down the road.

[Brian_K_White]

I think it's fair to wonder, if the job is that varied, then was it ever the correct design approach in the first place to presume to ever be able to predict and handle the unpredictable infinite permutations?

This is init vs systemd. 50 years ago, they could not predict all the crazy infinite things a unix system would want to do. And yet they made a system that handled it all possible needs by knowing enough to avoid making assumptions about the infinite other end users or the infinite future. They knew the most important thing which was not to pretend to know the unknowable.

They made a simple base framework and a toolbox, and everyone was able to serve their own crazy individual needs, still 50 years later.

And it still works. Systemd did not need to come along to fix some deficiency, it just came along anyway because for every wise engineer there are 10 clever engineers, and after 50 years of rapid growth the population of linux admins is less than 1% people that know how to reject a shiny new bad idea and 99% kids who do not. Plus of course a few huge businesses who just want that kind of appliance system for their own business reasons and don't care one turd about engineering or empowering the end user or anything like that outside of their own walls.

It's at least fair to look at grub2 and wonder if it's not just a huge self-inflicted wound from trying to deny the undeniable.

Maybe it should be something more like a library of smaller scope scripts that the end user uses a bit more manually.

The common cases can still be handled automatically so no change for 99%, the uncommon but known cases the user can configure their system to use something from the library for that situation, and totally new unknown situations are simpler to handle by writing a new script or adapting an existing one, because the framework is fewer layers and less indirect.

[tuna74]

"And it still works. Systemd did not need to come along to fix some deficiency, it just came along anyway because for every wise engineer there are 10 clever engineers, and after 50 years of rapid growth the population of linux admins is less than 1% people that know how to reject a shiny new bad idea and 99% kids who do not. Plus of course a few huge businesses who just want that kind of appliance system for their own business reasons and don't care one turd about engineering or empowering the end user or anything like that outside of their own walls."

If you want to you can always run something like Devuan. You don't have to shit on other projects or people to run the software that you want.

[Brian_K_White]

Sure if I want, I can indeed run anything at all, including that. What's that got to do with anything?

The observation of majority linux and systemd and unix design principles remains a fact regardless what I happen to run. Even if the only thing I happen to run is freebsd which has no such problem. "you can run ..." is both true and irrelevant, doesn't change a thing.

Another thing I can do if I want to, is observe something and describe what I see, even if someone like you doesn't agree, and has no better way to handle that than to suggest the speaker should do something else besides speak their mind rather than actually argue or counter any of the points. (Everyone including me already knows the sales pitch for systemd, it's unlikely you have any argument that I don't already know, this is very much a religious issue at this point, as in there is no actual changing of anyone's minds on either side)

You like systemd and don't like hearing blasphemy criticizing it? Tough shit!

[crabbone]

The complexity of GRUB isn't justified by the number of systems it has to support. The number of supported systems is also not the reason why GRUB is so complex. The cause of complexity is poor design choices, if you can even call it that, when it comes to configuration and defaults.

It doesn't matter that better options exist. GRUB is the subject of this discussion. If it were about systemd-boot, then it would've been legitimate to complain about it or to praise it. But, it's not the subject.

But, since you mentioned "other options"... they are both the indication of the larger problem: Linux boot process is poorly designed and that's why many independent teams tried to replace it to variable degree of success. GRUB isn't the only poorly designed piece of this process. And they work to obscure and make even less accessible the subject of system booting for the wider audience, creating a feedback loop where the only few people brave enough to dive in and try to understand it are the people who started way back and usually have very distorted ideas about how their code is used by the layers built on top of it.

The whole of the booting process didn't need to be this complex: it could have fewer stages, fewer utilities that are responsible for different stages, fewer possible boot scenarios, better defined order of device initialization... the list goes on. GRUB is only a part of the larger problem, albeit it's a big part.