is GAG better than GRUB?

[Michael A. Peters]

On 04/06/2005 07:48:07 AM, Duncan Lithgow wrote:
> I've just been through a bit of a nightmare with grub changing and
> deleting things. Probably mostly my own fault and the result of my
> linux newbie fingers, but I certainly read every instruction.
> 
> So, someone suggested I "dump GRUB and use GAG" what do people think?

I'm currently using grub - but when I set up dual boot systems, I  
always use gag - reason being that gag can easily be written to a  
floppy and even to a CD (use the floppy image as the boot image for the  
CD)

GAG also I think is better for installers, the installer can have gag  
as a boot option right on the iso - and not install a boot loader to  
the mbr, but just leave the mbr alone by default.

Then use can install gag to mbr if they want - or instead install gag  
to floppy and just insert floppy when they want to boot the system.

With gag, you can also disable cdrom and floppy boot in the bios - and  
tell gag to boot from cdrom/floppy when you want to. Well, with floppy  
anyway - not positive about cdrom.

Anyway - gag is really sweet - I had a modified RULE install CD - one  
option on CD was to boot into slinky to install, second option was to  
boot into memtest86, third option was to boot into gag - which, being  
graphical, is easy to deal with when they need to recover a boot option  
because something ate the mbr.

I really like gag. But on pure linux systems, I just use grub.

-- 
Michael A. Peters
http://mpeters.us/