Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    apt-get
    Beans
    4,246
    Distro
    Ubuntu Gnome Development Release

    Question GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Hi,

    http://i46.tinypic.com/345fybs.jpg

    I'm aware that 12.10 will be shipped with GRUB version 2 but I'm still using GRUB 1.99 as shown in the above screenshot.

    This is Asus F3F Laptop, Intel Core Duo T2350 @1.86GHz, 512MB RAM, Graphics is Intel 945GM/GMS and it is a multi-boot system with Lubuntu 12.04 as the main OS.

    I was very surprised after I did the installation of Lubuntu 12.10 and updated GRUB from the main system that I have on that machine which is Lubuntu 12.04. Yes, GRUB 1.99 for Lubuntu 12.04 is installed in the MBR.

    Why there are 3 entries instead of 2?
    If I'm not mistaken:

    Ubuntu' --class ubuntu --class gun-linux --class gnu --class os ....etc

    Ubuntu, with Linux 3.5.0-15-generic' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os ....etc

    Ubuntu, with Linux 3.5.0-15-generic (recovery mode )' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os ....etc
    When I choose the first two in red, I guess I get the same result. But again, why there are two? are they different or the same?
    Why the entries have very long names? is that a bug? some sort of compatibility issue between GRUB 1.99 and GRUB 2.0? what is going on?

    Thanks!

    P.S.
    I have not installed GRUB 2.0 to the MBR yet and not planing to do so as of now.
    Last edited by amjjawad; October 2nd, 2012 at 01:42 PM. Reason: Highlight that I have installed Lubuntu 12.10
    My Website: http://amjjawad.net
    My Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad
    Current Projects: Kibo, ToriOS and Ubuntu GNOME
    Member of GNOME Foundation and Ubuntu

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    7,862
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    There are a couple of recent threads about Grub 2.0 which you may like to look through. Some of us have noticed things like this and a few are trying to work out why it is like that.

    It is not clear if you have an install of 12.10. I guess that you must have.

    I have found that Grub 2.0 has different designations for the kernels to that used by Grub 1.99. When running update-grub and putting Grub 2.0 into the MBR we get duplicate entries that are a combination of the new Grub 2.0 designations and the old Grub 1.99 designations. I am of the opinion that this is due to how update-grub works and not a bug with Grub 2.0 itself. But, hey, what do I know?

    I have also found that Grub 1.99 on 12.04 will read the Grub 2.0 configurations files and create multiple entries.

    Grub 2.0 allows for sub-menus. So, Recovery mode and older kernels are put into a sub-menu. So, you see 'Ubuntu' for the main 12.10 kernel and underneath 'Advance options for Ubuntu.' That is the sub-menu. There will be a similar sub-menu for every install of Ubuntu including 12.04.

    But, Grub 1.99 cannot make use of sub-menus so it reads those Grub 2.0 configuration files and creates a long list of single entries in its menu.

    Also, in each sub-menu there is first a link to the main kernel. So, that is a kind of duplication. We can load the main kernel by selecting its entry in the menu or from the Advanced Options list, without having to go backward a step.

    My guess that in your menu "Ubuntu -class ubuntu" etc, refers to the main kernel which must be Linux 3.5.0-15. And "Ubuntu, with Linux 3.5.015" etc., is also referring to that same kernel but using the Grub 1.99 designation.

    There is something I am curious about but that I cannot test.

    What will someone with Ubuntu 12.04 get when they upgrade to 12.10? I know what will happen if they install 12.10 as a dual boot. But what kind of Grub menu will they see if they do a straight upgrade from 12.04 to 12.10? And what advice can we give to make the transition easier?

    Regards.
    Last edited by grahammechanical; October 2nd, 2012 at 12:31 PM.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just call me JF
    Beans
    1,053
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    I have the same thing on my Mini311c; I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 as the main OS and Kubuntu 12.10 as a secondary installation. As such, grub 1.99 is installed to the MBR but the 12.10 grub config is grub 2.00.

    I'd assumed that 1.99 doesn't know quite what to do with the 2.00 files so does the best it can, hence the extra stuff.
    1) MSI GT70: i7-3650, 16GB, GTX680M, XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    2) Dell Studio 1749
    : i5-540, 8GB, ATi 5650, Intel 5300AGN XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    3) Lenovo X61: C2D T7200, 2GB, Intel HDA, iwlwifi, XFCE@Manjaro-x64-OpenRC

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    apt-get
    Beans
    4,246
    Distro
    Ubuntu Gnome Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Quote Originally Posted by grahammechanical View Post
    There are a couple of recent threads about Grub 2.0 which you may like to look through. Some of us have noticed things like this and a few are trying to work out why it is like that.
    Hi and thanks for posting. I have seen one thread and I'm sure there are more. I wanted to start my own thread to explain my own issue on my own test.

    It is not clear if you have an install of 12.10. I guess that you must have.
    I have updated my post
    Obviously, I have installed Lubuntu 12.10. If I understood you correctly, I think you were referring to that part.

    What will someone with Ubuntu 12.04 get when they upgrade to 12.10? I know what will happen if they install 12.10 as a dual boot. But what kind of Grub menu will they see if they do a straight upgrade from 12.04 to 12.10? And what advice can we give to make the transition easier?
    They will have GRUB 2.0 because it will be a part of Lubuntu 12.10 packages.
    The real question is, what kind of mess that will create? hopefully there will be NO mess but my first advise about that since things are not 100% clear will be: DO NOT upgrade, please do a clean install, which is always better IMHO.
    My Website: http://amjjawad.net
    My Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad
    Current Projects: Kibo, ToriOS and Ubuntu GNOME
    Member of GNOME Foundation and Ubuntu

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    7,862
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    I have found out a little more since my last post.

    Update-grub and update-grub2 do the same thing. They call an application x-executable called grub-mkconfig. That writes the grub.cfg file but it does not overwrite the MBR.

    This is why when I run update-grub on my 12.10 installs the Grub of 12.04 remains in control.

    I think, but I have not tested this that the command to save to MBR is grub-install.

    A new installation must do more than run grub-mkconfig. It must also run grub-install because the new install over-writes what is already existing in the MBR.

    I agree with your view that a new install will be best but unless Software Sources is set for LTS releases only, Update Manager will offer an upgrade to 12.10. What the resulting menu will look like I do not know. I do not have a separate hard disk to test this out.

    Regards.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    apt-get
    Beans
    4,246
    Distro
    Ubuntu Gnome Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Quote Originally Posted by grahammechanical View Post
    Update-grub and update-grub2 do the same thing.
    Yes. I thought you already know that
    I think it is written somewhere on the Wiki? not 100% sure.

    They call an application x-executable called grub-mkconfig. That writes the grub.cfg file but it does not overwrite the MBR.
    No overwrite UNTIL you install GRUB to the MBR. GRUB is too smart IMHO and it will not write itself by itself to the MBR.

    This is why when I run update-grub on my 12.10 installs the Grub of 12.04 remains in control.
    Totally useless since GRUB of 12.04 is controlling the whole thing

    I think, but I have not tested this that the command to save to MBR is grub-install.
    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Grub2
    This is a great source of information beside drs305 is one of the best guys who knows a lot about GRUB and he's one of the Forum Admins.

    A new installation must do more than run grub-mkconfig. It must also run grub-install because the new install over-writes what is already existing in the MBR.
    New install, IMHO and AFAIK does:
    Install GRUB then run update-grub before it finishes the installation.
    As for installing to the MBR or not?
    1- In case it is automatic install, it will be installed in the MBR.
    2- If it is manual installation, then the user will decide where to install GRUB.

    I agree with your view that a new install will be best but unless Software Sources is set for LTS releases only, Update Manager will offer an upgrade to 12.10. What the resulting menu will look like I do not know.
    I don't like to upgrade and never upgraded an LTS release.

    I do not have a separate hard disk to test this out.
    If you have a 4GB USB Drive, that would be more than enough
    My Website: http://amjjawad.net
    My Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad
    Current Projects: Kibo, ToriOS and Ubuntu GNOME
    Member of GNOME Foundation and Ubuntu

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Beans
    3,717
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    deleted
    Last edited by Cavsfan; October 3rd, 2012 at 08:42 PM.
    Check Java Version | Install Java via WEB UPD8 PPA
    Creating a Custom Maintenance Free GRUB2 Screen Community Wiki
    Precise 12.04 | Trusty 14.04 | Vivid 15.04 | Mint Rebecca 17.1 | Windows 7 | All 64 bit

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    apt-get
    Beans
    4,246
    Distro
    Ubuntu Gnome Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Aha, here is another guy who is obsessed about GRUB
    Remember me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavsfan View Post
    I will throw this in: if you have re-installed any of your Ubuntus, you need to note the UUID of the one you are logged into via sudo blkid
    Then edit fstab and correct the UUIDs gksu gedit /etc/fstab

    It may have multiple UUIDs, the only one that should be there is the one that sudo blkid says should be in fstab.
    There will most probably also be multiple entries for your swap file as well.
    Just delete the old one(s) and save the file.

    You will have to do this in each Ubuntu that you have re-installed.
    And of course don't forget to enter sudo update-grub or sudo update-grub2 (yes they both do the same thing).

    Then when all of your fstab entries are correct, your boot menu should be correct.
    Even when you delete a partition and reinstall the Ubuntu, somehow fstab remembers where the original UUIDs were. That is why I am saying you have to manually correct them.

    Thanks for sharing your experience but that what I personally expected from GRUB version 2.
    Ok, we both can do it but for new comers, I guess it is a bit of a problem for them.

    With 1.99, we didn't have to do anything like that. Now, with 2.0, we do need to edit? this is not a good idea for many of users, I guess.

    I don't have many systems there and I know what to choose but for those who have many systems, yes, they need to use GRUB Customizer which I have no idea how it will work with the new GRUB OR maybe your method

    Thanks a lot
    My Website: http://amjjawad.net
    My Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad
    Current Projects: Kibo, ToriOS and Ubuntu GNOME
    Member of GNOME Foundation and Ubuntu

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    7,862
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Earlier I posted this:

    I think, but I have not tested this that the command to save to MBR is grub-install.
    I can now confirm, through testing it myself, that this command

    Code:
    sudo grub-install /dev/sda
    will save an updated Grub configuration into the MBR the first hard disc. In my case the only hard disk.

    So, I now have a 12.10 Grub 2.0 menu in control, which is a bit neater than the mess that Grub 1.99 was making of the menu.

    Regards.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    apt-get
    Beans
    4,246
    Distro
    Ubuntu Gnome Development Release

    Re: GRUB 2.0 vs GRUB 1.99 - Long Entries

    Quote Originally Posted by grahammechanical View Post
    Earlier I posted this:



    I can now confirm, through testing it myself, that this command

    Code:
    sudo grub-install /dev/sda
    will save an updated Grub configuration into the MBR the first hard disc. In my case the only hard disk.

    So, I now have a 12.10 Grub 2.0 menu in control, which is a bit neater than the mess that Grub 1.99 was making of the menu.

    Regards.
    The reason why I don't want to do that is: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2059108

    There are some bugs and GRUB 2.0 has the same long entries.
    My Website: http://amjjawad.net
    My Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad
    Current Projects: Kibo, ToriOS and Ubuntu GNOME
    Member of GNOME Foundation and Ubuntu

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •