On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 1:31 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:43:02AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mi, 06.04.22 07:33, Neal Gompa (ngompa13(a)gmail.com) wrote:
> > Irrespective of this change, I would flat-out oppose moving to
> > sd-boot. In any case, you can't use sd-boot for live media.
> >
> > If we were going to move to pure EFI boot manager, I'd rather use one
> > that has a decent user experience and not a barebones crappy one.
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> What are you missing in sd-boot, specifically?
>
> Also, why would a boot menu need a particularly fancy user experience?
> It's a boot manager, not a web browser.
"barebones crappy one" is pretty strong. I'm too am interested in
hearing what is so wrong with the sd-boot experience.
The problem with systemd-boot is it still has an interface. I prefer
no interface for bootloaders.
I'm a bit frustrated that systemd-boot isn't signed, and apparently (I
guess) shim hard codes GRUB as the next bootloader?
This portion of the thread maybe ought to be split out?
--
Chris Murphy