[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies
From: |
cr |
Subject: |
Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:19:04 +1200 |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> David Horton Add to Address Book wrote:
> > I have one minor suggestion for improvement. I think it would be a
> > good idea to change the name of the default configuration file to
> > something other than menu.lst.
>
> You're right. I came from RedHat to Debian and found a new world.
> (RedHat does call it grub.conf.)
>
> > Perhaps a better choice might be 'grub.conf' or 'boot.conf'.
>
> I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf
> And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand.
>
> 2 sen,
>
> Uwe
>
Well, I'd say, please call it _either_ grub.conf _or_ menu.lst but
please don't add to the confusion by introducing yet another name for it!
As for where to put it, I'd have to disagree with the /etc idea - mainly
because (IMO) it's most easily found if kept with the other GRUB files, as at
present. But also, GRUB is not technically a Unix application (as I
understand), so UNIX rules about where to put things shouldn't necessarily
apply. GRUB can be (and on my system it is) resident on a FAT16 drive
i.e. DOS/Windows. I could create a 'etc' DOS directory just for
grub.conf but why? (I hasten to add, most of my system is Linux).
cr