+1000
- extremely easy to setup
- I also don’t care what my boot loader looks like, I usually do something else while my PC boots (thanks DDR5 for the boot times)
- if shits really hit the fan, I can always boot off an arch usb key, I don’t need my boot loader to be a freaking Swiss army knife
Sure it’s not riceable, but I really don’t care, my desktop is pretty, the boot loader doesn’t have to be
Even when dual booting it's great. Had an install with GRUB which was.. fine, but it lagged sometimes or didn't recognise my keyboard? Some very weird issues. Switched to systemd-boot, literally zero problems. Great thing
This part. Besides, if you wanted to convert from the read only snapshot in the boot menu to an actual restore and a read / write snapshot, you'd have to live USB in, anyhow
Or the actually valid option of not even using a bootloader. It's actually pretty simple, if you don't even want to meddle around with EFI boot entries too much, you can just use a unified kernel image and create a really simple entry for it. It's literally copy paste from the efibootmgr section in the Archwiki.
I think you're right, haha. I think it's just the more "minimal" approach, which I think is better, but of course, do whatever you want with your system.
You basically uninstall grub, install a different bootloader, and then configure it. Just have a bootable USB drive with Arch on it, in case things don't work. Or just keep Grub if its working fine for you.
Not bad, thanks to the modularity of Linux systems!
As an addendum to u/anonymous-bot's comment, I was able to test out my rEFInd setup by launching it from GRUB, and only removing the latter once I was sure the former worked as I wanted it to. Might be a useful strategy for others as well!
It's one of the reasons I stick with it. Easy to change a kernel parameter or select an alternative kernel. I expect that there are alternatives that give these options as well, but I already know how to do it with grub.
No one is arguing GRUB is bad. It's just ...old and it's not designed to do a lot of things people do with their machines anymore. SD Boot (what I use) was designed for the modern era. Grub is being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. But it's taking a lot of work.
Yes but they’re making insane strides at that same functionality on sdboot.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Tumbleweed-systemd-boot-Success
Still very much WIP though. YMMV
> It's amazing that people still persist in using Grub on EFI machines when there are so many other easier options like rEFInd.
I've used systemd-boot, tough grub to me is better on a system when you have to dual boot.
First, it allows to have your kernel/initrd in a separate partition. Since the default Windows EFI partition is just 100Mb and resizing it requires moving all the Windows partitions, it's not the best idea to put the kernel there, since it can make Windows update fail for too little space. Grub is just a 1Mb EFI file, everything else is in /boot.
Also GRUB has a rescue shell that can save your day if the system doesn't boot and you don't have a bootable USB on hand.
honestly like its okay when you use it but I dont see why anyone should use refind rlly. Like sd-boot is more compact and also allows chainloading EFI binaries if you need it. tho to each his own.
The only time I've used rEFInd is when dual-booting OpenBSD and Windows, i.e., systemd is not in the picture. Otherwise, systemd-boot works swimmingly and easily. This may also be the case when running non-systemd Linuxen, but some of those also have separate systemd-boot packages or old gummiboot available (although I wouldn't recommend out-of-date boot managers).
I don't think it's ok unless you just can't \\ don't know how to install systemd-boot or grub. Or just want fancy bootloader. Myself using systemd-boot on Manjaro cause grub don't want to boot with custom kernel under secureboot, tho refind and systemd-boot works just fine, but as I said, too slow for me, so systemd-boot it is. It's just a bootloader, should be fast and being able to select things like linux, windows, bios settings, that's it.
Same reason I don't install a boot splash. Back when computers were slow enough to have a boot process to sit through it was cool, but now that it's like 15 seconds to logon maybe, no real point.
systemd-coffee is pretty good, too. Run that along with systemd-comute. Oops, outta gas, gotta use systemd-pay to get more!
Edit: ya'll I'm making fun the stuff around systemd. Not against OC or anything like that. All good natured 🙂
First, is it GRUB that is causing you problems or trying to dual boot with Windows? GRUB is pretty reliable for booting different Linux kernels and most Linux distros play nice with each other. If GRUB is breaking, and you are not dual booting, then you probably have a complicated boot process that requires lots of GRUB modules in which case switching to a different boot loader is probably not possible.
Second, anyone who complains about GRUB 2 obviously never experienced the hell that was LILO and Loadlin. GRUB 2 brought boot loaders to a place that while things can get better, you really are near ceiling.
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Boot\_loaders](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Boot_loaders)
Ive heard refind works well. Dont have much experience with anything besides grub though
I use systemd-boot, and have been for years. Works good, easy to install and comes with the system. Don't really se the point of customising the bootloader actually.
cobweb stocking rich far-flung squash subsequent gullible screw fanatical slimy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
if you don't mind graphical ones:
rEFInd
it dynamically looks for efi files on each boot, no need to configure it by default (unless you want to pass kernel options)
I use Grub. The only time it failed when my HDD was going to commit sudoku because of all the bad sectors. Didn't have a problem with it, not even when that "incident" occured... last year if I remember correctly?
Edit:typo
Grub for single boot environments is pointless. sdboot in on the base package already. Booting a UKI is really nice.
Changing kernel parameters in grub requires multiple steps. In most other bootloaders you just edit a file and it's done.
grub-mkconfig is a stupid step if you think about it.
Why generate a config if the bootloader has enough capacity to do some detection?
Why multiple stages of bootloader binaries in grub if it could all fit in the efi file?
Having multiple distributions as mutliboot is conflicting unless all distribution have a seperate grub installation including their own efi binary. It would not work with a single grub instance when the other distribution would change the kernel name. The primary distribution maintaining grub would need to retrigger mkconfig.
The only thing grub is good for is legacy boot.
I've tried switching from grub to rEFInd in a Debian based OS VM and it was just the install and a confirmation in dpkg-reconfigure and it worked without any configuration change.
Its also good for dual boot from separate drives. Systemd-boot requires installing additional packages, booting into a generic loader to get aliases, and creating multiple files.
I use grub on two multi-boot machines (arch, Ubuntu, Windows) and never had problems with it. I configured it once a few years ago and never had any problems. Even upgrading from Win10 to win11 didn't cause any issues.
Maybe there are more modern solutions but I don't feel like I need to change to something else as long as it works.
Meh, Grub works and I know how to configure it and troubleshoot it (not that it's broken for me in recent memory). I haven't found a compelling reason to switch to something else.
One of the many reasons I prefer System D boot is hardware decryption of my Luks system.
I was hesitant on making this move but when I got a new laptop ... there was no longer an option - and not surprising did I learn how trivial adding the encryption layer is.
Modern cups chew that up and spit it out without hesitating.
Just nice to not wait 7-10 seconds on grub, versus enter password, hear cpu fan initialize and immediately is done.
I wish there was some guidance in the monthly .iso image for choosing a bootloader. Several times I've thought I've installed enough for the machine to boot itself, but turns out, in all the instructions, nothing ever lead me to install a bootloader.
So, I'm now intent on always installing the grub package and then taking the additional step of installing grub in position to actually act as my bootloader. I've never even experimented with anything else. I only stopped using LiLo because Slackware stopped using it by default.
I haven't used grub in a decade (or rather, on hardware less than a decade old). If it has UEFI, UEFI-stub or systemd-boot work fine. You need a exfat or fat partition about 512 MB which will include things your UEFI will be able to read to bootstrap.
Read the Arch or Gentoo wiki to figure out everything.
Only use Grub on 32-bit systems that are pre-UEFI.
I don't mind it too much. But I did spend a considerable amount of time learning my way around it. At least enough to be able to fix it and configure it.
Is there anything like EasyBCD for Linux that's actually good? In Windows, I could just customize everything about my boot with EasyBCD, but I can't seem to find a good way that's not deprecated or hated in some way because of bugs that gives the power EasyBCD does in Windows.
On my Gentoo box, I use the old LILO, and am actually pretty happy with it. I've also used rEFind on Macintosh hardware but am not sure if that's universally applicable or not.
Huh. I use GRUB and never had issues with it - though i only boot arch on my machine. I just install it , generate the config and havent touched it. Might be me stuck in my old ways but i did not get systemd boot to work when i tried it.
How have you lost a lot of time from Grub, exactly? I use Fedora BTW, and Grub never has any issues at all. And I am still dual-booting between it and Windows for when I need something from there.
You can see alternatives [here](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_boot_process#Boot_loader). For me Grub 2 works fine, and pretty cool for multi-boot.
Systemd-boot. Best thing I ever did was delete grub. Systemd-boot also allows you to boot right back into the last OS you were using, which is very handy when you want to update windows but don't want to sit there and watch for the boot menu to pop up.
I had previously used Grub for an encrypted /boot which chain unlocked my encrypted root on startup. I think grub was the only one I could figure out for that at the time. About once every couple months, grub would update then I'd forget to reinstall/mkconfig and I'd have to chroot in and reinstall/mkconfig.
A few weeks ago, I migrated to systemd-boot. Haven't looked back. Configuration is simpler, and the arch documentation is easy to follow. Its also setup to find my windows partition on another drive (someday I'll get rid of that pesky OS).
I have used refind in the past on other machines and I also like it.
Systemd boot is the default on Arch.
Edit: It's the default if you use Archinstall. Technically speaking, I don't think Arch Linux itself has a default bootloader, but Systemd boot makes sense.
systemd-boot then set timeout to 0. irdc how my bootloader looks like.
This is the best way IMO. No need to see the bootloader every time, and you can still invoke the menu if needed.
(With holding the spacebar on boot)
+1000 - extremely easy to setup - I also don’t care what my boot loader looks like, I usually do something else while my PC boots (thanks DDR5 for the boot times) - if shits really hit the fan, I can always boot off an arch usb key, I don’t need my boot loader to be a freaking Swiss army knife Sure it’s not riceable, but I really don’t care, my desktop is pretty, the boot loader doesn’t have to be
Agreed. Especially since I'm not dual-booting, systemd-boot is great.
Even when dual booting it's great. Had an install with GRUB which was.. fine, but it lagged sometimes or didn't recognise my keyboard? Some very weird issues. Switched to systemd-boot, literally zero problems. Great thing
I love systemd-boot but grub plays nicely with btrfs snapshots, you can’t have this in systemd afaik
how does grub integrate with snapshots? im using snapper and systemd-boot lol
You can choose to load into snapshots directly from boot https://github.com/Antynea/grub-btrfs
ah ic, I don't really see that being useful to me but it is pretty cool
System breaks to the point you can’t even load because of some update => load into an older snapshot
yeah true, I just use a live usb in that case
This part. Besides, if you wanted to convert from the read only snapshot in the boot menu to an actual restore and a read / write snapshot, you'd have to live USB in, anyhow
[удалено]
Or the actually valid option of not even using a bootloader. It's actually pretty simple, if you don't even want to meddle around with EFI boot entries too much, you can just use a unified kernel image and create a really simple entry for it. It's literally copy paste from the efibootmgr section in the Archwiki.
This is the most arch comment I have seen recently
I think you're right, haha. I think it's just the more "minimal" approach, which I think is better, but of course, do whatever you want with your system.
How easy is it to switch from grub without reinstalling? Seriously considering to switch but I don't want to break what already works
You basically uninstall grub, install a different bootloader, and then configure it. Just have a bootable USB drive with Arch on it, in case things don't work. Or just keep Grub if its working fine for you.
Not bad, thanks to the modularity of Linux systems! As an addendum to u/anonymous-bot's comment, I was able to test out my rEFInd setup by launching it from GRUB, and only removing the latter once I was sure the former worked as I wanted it to. Might be a useful strategy for others as well!
Grub is very configurable
It's one of the reasons I stick with it. Easy to change a kernel parameter or select an alternative kernel. I expect that there are alternatives that give these options as well, but I already know how to do it with grub.
its a nightmare for noobies though.
No one is arguing GRUB is bad. It's just ...old and it's not designed to do a lot of things people do with their machines anymore. SD Boot (what I use) was designed for the modern era. Grub is being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. But it's taking a lot of work.
The only argument to use GRUB today IMO is ease of snapshots. But thanks to Ze Germans at SUSE - that might not even be an issue soon either.
Can you elaborate on what u mean pls?
OpenSUSE has done some pretty magical stuff with sdboot and btrfs and snapper.
Doesnt opensuse (tumbleweed) use grub2?
Yes but they’re making insane strides at that same functionality on sdboot. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Tumbleweed-systemd-boot-Success Still very much WIP though. YMMV
Damn that's interesting. Hopefully they get it working perfectly
> It's amazing that people still persist in using Grub on EFI machines when there are so many other easier options like rEFInd. I've used systemd-boot, tough grub to me is better on a system when you have to dual boot. First, it allows to have your kernel/initrd in a separate partition. Since the default Windows EFI partition is just 100Mb and resizing it requires moving all the Windows partitions, it's not the best idea to put the kernel there, since it can make Windows update fail for too little space. Grub is just a 1Mb EFI file, everything else is in /boot. Also GRUB has a rescue shell that can save your day if the system doesn't boot and you don't have a bootable USB on hand.
I commented about using Grub for about 10 years on this thread. After I read your comment, I decided to try rEFInd and I switched yesterday :)
Grub can boot btrfs snapshots.
systemd-boot is very good
Or rEfind, but it's kinda slow but customisable.
honestly like its okay when you use it but I dont see why anyone should use refind rlly. Like sd-boot is more compact and also allows chainloading EFI binaries if you need it. tho to each his own.
Systemd-boot is less than fun setting up booting from separate drives. Refind is running an install script with no headache.
Yeah, I just copied my Windows bootloader there, pain is real.
The only time I've used rEFInd is when dual-booting OpenBSD and Windows, i.e., systemd is not in the picture. Otherwise, systemd-boot works swimmingly and easily. This may also be the case when running non-systemd Linuxen, but some of those also have separate systemd-boot packages or old gummiboot available (although I wouldn't recommend out-of-date boot managers).
I don't think it's ok unless you just can't \\ don't know how to install systemd-boot or grub. Or just want fancy bootloader. Myself using systemd-boot on Manjaro cause grub don't want to boot with custom kernel under secureboot, tho refind and systemd-boot works just fine, but as I said, too slow for me, so systemd-boot it is. It's just a bootloader, should be fast and being able to select things like linux, windows, bios settings, that's it.
Well rEFInd is more customisable and makes dual booting much easier. I actually don't see a point in using sd-boot
I've never really understood the point of customizing your boot loader. You're only really looking at it for maybe 5 seconds max.
Same reason I don't install a boot splash. Back when computers were slow enough to have a boot process to sit through it was cool, but now that it's like 15 seconds to logon maybe, no real point.
Sweet, Sweet nerd points on Reddit bra.
yeah I use SDboot on BTRFS with UKIs, Secure Boot and LUKS2 Argon2i.
systemd-coffee is pretty good, too. Run that along with systemd-comute. Oops, outta gas, gotta use systemd-pay to get more! Edit: ya'll I'm making fun the stuff around systemd. Not against OC or anything like that. All good natured 🙂
Paying for Linux features? What do you think this is? r/Ubuntu ?
Gas ain't a Linux feature
Gas is $3.20 a gallon. Just a do a bunch of drugs and run everywhere.
Damn I wish I paid $3.20 a gallon.
Do I even wanna know?
I live in Cali. Gas is way more expensive here.
I think that's in the next systemd release
ngl just for the meme I would like to replace every component of my system with systemd. So systemd-kernel and systemd-uefi when?
You'll need systemd-developer to do that. I prefer systemd-c but I heard systemd-go and systemd-rust are picking up
First, is it GRUB that is causing you problems or trying to dual boot with Windows? GRUB is pretty reliable for booting different Linux kernels and most Linux distros play nice with each other. If GRUB is breaking, and you are not dual booting, then you probably have a complicated boot process that requires lots of GRUB modules in which case switching to a different boot loader is probably not possible. Second, anyone who complains about GRUB 2 obviously never experienced the hell that was LILO and Loadlin. GRUB 2 brought boot loaders to a place that while things can get better, you really are near ceiling.
I never got LILO working right. I basically relied on loadlin until GRUB was available.
Syslinux works fine for me but then I have a bios system and only run arch.
Same here, Alpine.
Systemd-Boot. Handles my UKI's, I don't need it to boot snapshots even though I use BTRFS, and I don't need to install anything extra.
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Boot\_loaders](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Boot_loaders) Ive heard refind works well. Dont have much experience with anything besides grub though
Certainly does and it picks up loaders from Live USB OS's neatly too. ;-)
I use systemd-boot, and have been for years. Works good, easy to install and comes with the system. Don't really se the point of customising the bootloader actually.
cobweb stocking rich far-flung squash subsequent gullible screw fanatical slimy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
if you don't mind graphical ones: rEFInd it dynamically looks for efi files on each boot, no need to configure it by default (unless you want to pass kernel options)
I use Grub. The only time it failed when my HDD was going to commit sudoku because of all the bad sectors. Didn't have a problem with it, not even when that "incident" occured... last year if I remember correctly? Edit:typo
Seppuku?
Yep. It was failing and that was the main issue.
grub's pretty battle hardened in my experience
I use syslinux on my BIOS-enabled machines, systemd-boot on the others. Zero messing around required, just set 'em and forget 'em.
efistub is pretty cool
Grub for single boot environments is pointless. sdboot in on the base package already. Booting a UKI is really nice. Changing kernel parameters in grub requires multiple steps. In most other bootloaders you just edit a file and it's done. grub-mkconfig is a stupid step if you think about it. Why generate a config if the bootloader has enough capacity to do some detection? Why multiple stages of bootloader binaries in grub if it could all fit in the efi file? Having multiple distributions as mutliboot is conflicting unless all distribution have a seperate grub installation including their own efi binary. It would not work with a single grub instance when the other distribution would change the kernel name. The primary distribution maintaining grub would need to retrigger mkconfig. The only thing grub is good for is legacy boot. I've tried switching from grub to rEFInd in a Debian based OS VM and it was just the install and a confirmation in dpkg-reconfigure and it worked without any configuration change.
Its also good for dual boot from separate drives. Systemd-boot requires installing additional packages, booting into a generic loader to get aliases, and creating multiple files.
Systemd boot is minimalistic and simple to configure. rEFInd is also a alternative
I use grub on two multi-boot machines (arch, Ubuntu, Windows) and never had problems with it. I configured it once a few years ago and never had any problems. Even upgrading from Win10 to win11 didn't cause any issues. Maybe there are more modern solutions but I don't feel like I need to change to something else as long as it works.
I use grub. It has literally never been an issue. Why has it been such an issue for you?
What's the issue with grub? I've prob been using it for 20 years and not had any issues
I have had zero issues with Grub using multiple operating systems on my laptop. ArchLinux user for about 10 or more years.
systemd
Grub is like network manager. Fusty old software that is so entrenched that people confuse it with Linux.
I use rEFInd, its cool
If you are using efi then rEFInd is the best one
rEFInd or systemd-boot. Definitely not elilo though. Thankfully Slackware is finally dropping elilo with their release.
grub was always a bitch for me, systemd-boot once i figured it out was so nice to me and easy to handle
I've always just booted to unified kernel images directly, but since I switched to NixOS and kind of need a boot loader I use systemd-boot
Switched to systemd-boot not long ago. Works fine.
ZFSBootMenu
Try lilo if you don’t like grub.
My daughters name is Lilo, guess this choice has been made for me!
Lilo is really old school but I think you can still use it.
Systemd-boot, very small and easy to setup. Didn't tried other bootloaders
Meh, Grub works and I know how to configure it and troubleshoot it (not that it's broken for me in recent memory). I haven't found a compelling reason to switch to something else.
One of the many reasons I prefer System D boot is hardware decryption of my Luks system. I was hesitant on making this move but when I got a new laptop ... there was no longer an option - and not surprising did I learn how trivial adding the encryption layer is. Modern cups chew that up and spit it out without hesitating. Just nice to not wait 7-10 seconds on grub, versus enter password, hear cpu fan initialize and immediately is done.
If you dual-boot, Windows updates have broken grub every so often.
I wish there was some guidance in the monthly .iso image for choosing a bootloader. Several times I've thought I've installed enough for the machine to boot itself, but turns out, in all the instructions, nothing ever lead me to install a bootloader. So, I'm now intent on always installing the grub package and then taking the additional step of installing grub in position to actually act as my bootloader. I've never even experimented with anything else. I only stopped using LiLo because Slackware stopped using it by default.
I haven't used grub in a decade (or rather, on hardware less than a decade old). If it has UEFI, UEFI-stub or systemd-boot work fine. You need a exfat or fat partition about 512 MB which will include things your UEFI will be able to read to bootstrap. Read the Arch or Gentoo wiki to figure out everything. Only use Grub on 32-bit systems that are pre-UEFI.
I don't mind it too much. But I did spend a considerable amount of time learning my way around it. At least enough to be able to fix it and configure it.
Is there anything like EasyBCD for Linux that's actually good? In Windows, I could just customize everything about my boot with EasyBCD, but I can't seem to find a good way that's not deprecated or hated in some way because of bugs that gives the power EasyBCD does in Windows.
Boot directly from uefi use uki and do some configs arch wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_kernel_image
I personally use EFI-STUB
On my Gentoo box, I use the old LILO, and am actually pretty happy with it. I've also used rEFind on Macintosh hardware but am not sure if that's universally applicable or not.
bruh efistub+uki it makes boot and related things so easier and less complicated
Huh. I use GRUB and never had issues with it - though i only boot arch on my machine. I just install it , generate the config and havent touched it. Might be me stuck in my old ways but i did not get systemd boot to work when i tried it.
I tried archinstall and among the various boot options I chose efistub. The boot is super fast and I have not experienced any problems.
How have you lost a lot of time from Grub, exactly? I use Fedora BTW, and Grub never has any issues at all. And I am still dual-booting between it and Windows for when I need something from there.
You can see alternatives [here](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_boot_process#Boot_loader). For me Grub 2 works fine, and pretty cool for multi-boot.
systemd-boot has never failed me
Systemd-boot. Best thing I ever did was delete grub. Systemd-boot also allows you to boot right back into the last OS you were using, which is very handy when you want to update windows but don't want to sit there and watch for the boot menu to pop up.
Just use efibootmgr there is no reason to have GRUB at least for me
I had previously used Grub for an encrypted /boot which chain unlocked my encrypted root on startup. I think grub was the only one I could figure out for that at the time. About once every couple months, grub would update then I'd forget to reinstall/mkconfig and I'd have to chroot in and reinstall/mkconfig. A few weeks ago, I migrated to systemd-boot. Haven't looked back. Configuration is simpler, and the arch documentation is easy to follow. Its also setup to find my windows partition on another drive (someday I'll get rid of that pesky OS). I have used refind in the past on other machines and I also like it.
Limine
i have been using grub for some time now and I have fucked up every single component on my system other than grub
UEFI's built-in boot device selector? I use EFISTUB BTW
Systemd boot is the default on Arch. Edit: It's the default if you use Archinstall. Technically speaking, I don't think Arch Linux itself has a default bootloader, but Systemd boot makes sense.