Why Still Use Grub?

Ask Fedora
1

Hoping someone knows why Fedora chooses to still use grub instead of moving to something like systemd-boot, which seems to be the “next” choice for linux…

Seriously, just wondering and not trying to start some age-old flame war.

Thanks, all!

1 Like
2

I encoutrer two issues myself, if not use grub:

  1. Old machines still do not have UEFI (systemd-boot is UEFI only)
  2. virt-manager cannot snapshot UEFI guests
4 Likes
3

True. Same question with systemd-networkd VS network-manager. I also Wonder if Fedora is using or not systemd-swap for their new zram swapfile?

I read somewhere that Fedora needs grub to install kernels their own way. I cannot be much clear by lack of knowledge.

I was formerly running Pop!OS which uses systemd-boot combined with kernelstub, a tool they have développed, and it is simple and efficient. You want to add commands to kernel? Just type ‘‘kernelstub command’’ and it’s done (for example kernelstub mitigations=off).

However there is a tuto to replace grub with systemd-boot on Fedora, it works well but i never managed to pass arguments permanently with this. Editing the *.conf loaders do not works.

We could try and test here, collectif works is Always better!

4

Pop!OS automatically detect if you’re running legacy or efi.

In the first case it installs Grub, in the 2nd systemd-boot.

So i can guess Fedora could do the same. But it’s not really a trouble as Grub works very well, it is just power users considerations!

1 Like
5

It also works across a lot of architectures, which System 76 is not concerned with. For Fedora it’s nice for all of these to work in a similar way.

3 Likes
6

Thanks for this point of view (and for all work on this distro i am in love with!)

Is there any technical reason not to replace grub in my workstation? How could i pass arguments yet? Thanks for your advices!

7

I use systemd-boot on mine. There wasn’t much to it.

Fedora seems to fully support systemd-boot already. I did it a last year but I think it was as simple as removing grub and friends then running bootctl install

To me, grub is a better default. It makes multi-booting easier and supports both UEFI and legacy/BIOS booting.

That being said, I greatly prefer systemd-boot personally.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, I think what happens is that when you remove grub it starts using kernel-install so you may need to re-install your kernels after running bootctl install. That being said, it has been a long time so I am not positive. Easy enough to do a quick test in a VM though.

1 Like
8

Interesting perspectives, all… I cut my teeth on Ubuntu Warty that I picked up at a tech trade show, destroyed my cli confidence with Arch, fell in love with Solus until the “old”—read 4.1—installer wouldn’t work because my newest laptop was “too new,” and came to Fedora wanting a new experience.

I’ve also read that one reason for Fedora sticking with grub has something to do with how the kernels are managed, @ogu. but couldn’t remember where I saw it and am too lazy to search for it. I’d also be interested in the systemd-networkd vs. network-manager piece because network-manager fails setting up my vpn (TunnelBear), which some research suggests it has something to do with permissions creating tun0; I can cli a connection, but only running the commands as root.

I’ve played with switching to systemd-boot, too, @dalto, and just wasn’t sure if it was “worth it.”

9

For a boot loader, what I want extra is to control which OS on which disk will be booted next via a control before shutdown.

I cannot completely get it working as my mainboard is standing in my way.

For Network manager, I find nmtui and nm-connection-editor are very helpful to causal users like myself.

If someone can make these two tools to generate systemd-networkd config files, then it will be a perfect match.

10

OTOH, why not? grub2 is solid and almost everyone knows how to use it. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

2 Likes
11

The Model T’s engine worked, too, but advancements made it obsolete; so, with systemd seemingly the future and Fedora regularly cutting that edge—I’m looking at you, wayland—I was just wondering why the “hold back.”

12

This has already been discussed a few months ago:
The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora. - devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

7 Likes
13

This is exactly what I hoped for when asking the question @vgaetera; thank you!

3 Likes
14

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.