For those that multi-boot Linux distros......why?

[zoli62]

The grub is both at the same time. Most graphical linux installers will prompt you to install the boot loader at the end of the installation process.

[BONK]

I use multiple drives and do it from BIOS…guess I am a weirdo.

[manuel]

Well… it works reliably, but is a bit clumsy to use…

[freebird54]

Perhaps - but no way to tell from that usage choice! It beats having to physically unplug/replug various configurations of drives for different use cases.

Yes, I did that for a while with Windows and TAMU (Texas A&M Linux) on my hi-powered 386 tower… Lilo just didn’t seem to want to know, and the internet help was pretty thin on the ground then.

[BONK]

Well…yes that is why I decided this is my only distro.

[ricklinux]

I do it because i can’t help myself. Therapy doesn’t work. When i get hungry i say “Where’s the grub?”

[nate]

@dalto

Cons

• systemd-boot requires the kernels/initrds to be in the EFI partition, grub doesn’t
  • The side effect of that, it it makes it tricky to do something like dual-boot two copies of eos because the kernels would collide unles you did something special
  • It also means that the efi partition has to be larger. If you have 100MB efi partition that probably isn’t going to work
• It is UEFI only, there is no support for legacy boot
• Grub has a fleet of options for graphical customizations of the menu

There’s quite a bit of cons there.

But i don’t really get why it would be a better choice over grub (which doesn’t have those cons).
Grub is complicated, but Grub + Grub customizer is combo that just works, and in all possible OS combos with no fuss a all. Grub Customizer uses refind to populate all the OSes in the boot menu. It does a good job too.

[dalto]

@nate

But i don’t really get why it would be a better choice over grub

It is a simpler solution, which I prefer, but that doesn’t make it “better”.

[zoli62]

Obviously, systemd-boot is less known than grub. Anyway, an application that customizes grub isn’t in every distro, so let’s be glad it exists for EOS. Sytemd-boot may be useful for distros that do not have a grub customization application.

[Archnoob]

I like separating desktop environments. Whenever I have installed multiple DEs, I always ended up with problems

I like KDE and XFCE

Plus I have a 3rd partition with Manjaro KDE because I like the Manjaro bootloader

[Beardedgeek72]

Same here. I hate having more than one desktop environment installed at once so if I have more, I always multi-boot.

[ricklinux]

Me too… i don’t like mixing more than one desktop so i multi boot also. I use grub but i don’t find it that easy to deal with. (It’s complicated) I’m not very good at understanding grub when you have mutiple boot. Have used rEFInd and although somewhat difficult at first thanks to @freebird54 i sort of have a handle on it. I still have a lot to learn!

[nate]

@zoli62

Sytemd-boot may be useful for distros that do not have a grub customization application.

Fair point

[dalto]

@zoli62

Sytemd-boot may be useful for distros that do not have a grub customization application.

I am not sure I follow the relationship between systemd-boot and grub customizer. In fact, I would argue they are polar opposite approaches.

The use case for systemd-boot is that you want a simple boot manager without all the complexity. Typically, the reason for this is just don’t want to deal with it. You want it to “just work”.

Think about all the complexity and weird problems that pop-up in grub from time to time.

• os-prober fails to locate one of your operating systems
• You accidentally install one OS in MBR and one in UEFI
• You rebuild grub and everything is sideways because the configuration is broken
• Different distros grubs are incapable of booting other distros without significant intervention
• New features take much longer to integrate into grub

Those things are caused by the fact that grub is fairly complicated. But remember, the trade-off is that the fact that it is complicated means it can do more things.

systemd-boot avoids all of that by having less complexity(and functionality). Grub customizer makes grub easier to manage by adding an additional layer of complexity. They are complete opposites.

That being said, I am not trying to criticize grub or encourage anyone not to use it. Just like everything else neither one is “better”, they are just different. The great thing is that we have both so depending on your use case and personal preferences, you can choose the one that is right for you.

[zoli62]

@dalto

Those things are caused by the fact that grub is fairly complicated. But remember, the trade-off is that the fact that it is complicated means it can do more things.

systemd-boot avoids all of that by having less complexity(and functionality). Grub customizer makes grub easier to manage by adding an additional layer of complexity. They are complete opposites.

Thank you for your exhaustive and correct answer. so in short, using systemd-boot is a kind of trade-off between easier usability and functionality. Neither is better than the other, everyone uses what is more handy for him.

[zoli62]

Using multiple operating systems and desktop environments in parallel can always cause more or less problems. For example, I am so bold that when running different Linux distributions in multiboot, I use a common swap partition.

[nate]

@dalto

I am not sure I follow the relationship between systemd-boot and grub customizer. In fact, I would argue they are polar opposite approaches.

Yeah I guess you read that wrong. @zoli62 was saying the same thing. In that you might be using systemd-boot on systems where grub-customizer is not available so using grub also becomes more complicated.

[dalto]

@nate

In that you might be using systemd-boot on systems where grub-customizer is not available so using grub also becomes more complicated.

The difference is in the definition of complicated/complexity. I don’t think we have the same definition.

When I am talking about simplicity, it isn’t about ease of use, it is about reduction of complexity. Grub customizer makes grub easier to use, but it doesn’t reduce the complexity or make it easier to troubleshoot problems. Arguably, it increases the complexity since there is now another tool/layer in the middle.

[Tasia91]

I went for systemd-boot this time. It really was easy and pretty straightforward. I wouldn’t probably switch to it from GRUB if it was already installed and set up by an installer, but otherwise I don’t see why not. Anyways, it boots

[ricklinux]

Did you do this on Endeavour?