On Mo, 11.04.22 02:34, Chris Murphy (lists(a)colorremedies.com) wrote:
> > 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.
Too much for some, too little for others ;-)
The UI it has is by default turned off and you only get it if you hold
shift down or so at boot.
I mean, we do need some logic how you can pick an older kernel/edit
kernel cmdline for debugging/recovery/testing reasons. And that's
exactly what we offer, but not much more.
(And of course, you can hold W down to boot windows. But booting into
windows on dual-boot systems should actually move into gdm or so, we
provide all the basic building blocks to make this nice, except the UI
for it is actually missing).
I'm a bit frustrated that systemd-boot isn't signed, and
apparently (I
guess) shim hard codes GRUB as the next bootloader?
That's mostly a political issue.
(We actually have some support in sd-boot to be installed inder the
"grubx64.efi" name, to work around this political mess...)
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin