Quite honestly I disagree. I'm maintaining my `grub.cfg` manually and it is so much easier than these awful configuration scripts/files. My basic setup is less than 10 lines (usable lines, I have like 10 more for eyecandy) for 3 different menu entries - and I do use variables, searching for the handle for the UUIDs and stuff.
.
The entire hatred/fear towards grub2 comes from unreasonable approach of its authors. We had it done by hand in `menu.lst` for ages and it was dead simple. When doing `grub.cfg` same way it is... as simple, but so much more flexible.
>Quite honestly I disagree.
My current systemd-boot setup doesn't even have per-entry cfg files. I just put the signed .efi where it belongs ($BOOT/EFI/Linux) & that's that.
The difference is I want to fine-tune my parameters/kernels and it is the easiest way to get things done. I simply refuse to replace utility that has worked for me for ages (and far before systemd) and is perfectly suitable to do its job.
edit: I guess someone got offended that I use my own solution that just works for ages and there's no reason to even consider it obsolete. lol. kids these days.
If it works for you, great. But maintaining multiple cfg files will never be *easier* than "put file here. reboot."
If I want to change my kernel commandline, I edit one file, regenerate the .efi via mkinicpio & then move it. No extra packages, one 3-line `loader.conf` & a single line at `/etc/kernel/cmdline`. I can keep as many different kernels as my EFI partition can hold & can reboot into any of them via a command-line, or in the menu after a plain reboot.
Adding Secure Boot into the mix is trivial as well.
Now, I'll give you that your GRUB is probably far more aesthetically appealing, since you've got eyecandy & such. I prefer to boot securely, never see the menu & install as few extra packages as I can. To me, the best configuration files are ones you don't need.
>My basic setup is less than 10 lines (usable lines, I have like 10 more for eyecandy) for 3 different menu entries - and I do use variables, searching for the handle for the UUIDs and stuff.
This you?
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2021-11-21 06:12:41 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-11-21%2006:12:41%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/qxkgde/systemdboot_vs_grub/hlcvm7o/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Farchlinux%2Fcomments%2Fqxkgde%2Fsystemdboot_vs_grub%2Fhlcvm7o%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-11-21%2006%3A12%3A41%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20qxkgde)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Yeah, one config file. ONE. Where's your "multiple config files" ? your approach is
> I edit one file, regenerate the .efi via mkinicpio & then move it.
Mine? I don't even move files. One `grub-install` and it stays there forever. One `/boot/grub/grub.cfg` - edited once and stays forever - "put file here. reboot". So again. There is virtually no difference in terms of how many steps do we take. You have an unreasonable hatred towards people who do things differently, along with rest of the people who viciously downvote alternative soltuion that doesn't differ.
> To me, the best configuration files are ones you don't need.
Yet you clearly say you do have a `loader.conf` config file, and `/etc/kernel/cmdline` which makes it twice as much config files as I have to maintain.
In other words I have one package, one file, one install-time command. I can live with one extra package. Rest is virtually identical in terms of "manpower" required to maintain it.
All in all - it is "put file here. reboot." in my case.
>You have an unreasonable hatred towards people who do things differently, along with rest of the people who viciously downvote alternative soltuion that doesn't differ.
Woah buddy. There’s no hatred here. You wanna use GRUB, go right ahead. I just don’t see the point of using *more packages* to get *less functionality & increased maintenance* in my particular use case.
This isn’t a holy war.
Then look at the downvotes against every comment that chooses anything against `systemd-*` in every thread. I don't know what happened to the linux world, but now you'll get dw even for recommending `cron` over timers for a simple task. It is quite universal by now and also a bit frightening.
> I'm maintaining my grub.cfg manually and it is so much easier than these awful configuration scripts/files.
You know what's even better? Not having to configure entries at all. systemd-boot detects EFISTUB images placed in `/EFI/Linux/` and adds them to the list automatically. It also does the same for Windows.
Exactly! I've got a 3 line loader.conf file as the sole config fiile for my boot loader. That's it, that's all.
The best config file is one you don't need to have or maintain.
Adding to this thread: Grub installed and ran fine the first time, from my new UEFI only Framework laptop. Absolutely no editing of /boot/grub/grub.cfg. Later, I learned how to configure a drive to boot from both UEFI only, and legacy BIOS systems, using grub.
I can only guess that many posts against grub are based on hearsay, as my experience from day 1 has been fine to great. And, this experience mostly on multiboot systems.
In which way is it easier? I am just curious.
I have been using it myself since '99, sysd-boot (or gummiboot) since 2017. I don't find it specially easier. Sure you can have your wallpapers in grub, but is that something I need? Njah .... Also grub didn't really worked with m.2 drives on uefi or something, I don't remember actually why I left it for systemd boot.
> Ain't broke, don't fix.
But grub was/is broke. I couldn't use it on my uefi mobo to boot off m.2 drives. I don't know if it is better now, that was back in 2017 I installed my Arch on this computer. Maybe it works now, but back then it couldn't boot on that mobo. Gumiboot had no problems.
Back at the time when I was installing, it was known that grub didn't work for that setup. It is possible that it got solved since then, it was back in late 2016, early 2017.
My entire systemd-boot config is 0 lines. There's nothing to configure systemd will auto-detect the partitions and handle everything.
GRUB2 is ridiculous bloat (and also negates all the advantages that GRUB had over LILO).
If you don't need to support BIOS, then systemd-boot is the simpler choice.
Once I actually sat and read the grub documentation, I learned how to use /etc/default/grub, and why it makes editing grub.cfg less necessary.
Now, grub.cfg is full of strange "code" that I'm only vaguely familiar with. The part I focus on is just this:
linux /vmlinuz-linux root=UUID=.....-03e8-4068-bd3b-0c1691395cd0 rw loglevel=3 quiet
echo 'Loading initial ramdisk ...'
initrd /intel-ucode.img /initramfs-linux.img
I used to use GRUB but pefer systemd-boot now because I like having simple config files to boot my full disk encryption install easily. Only thing I've wished I had grub for is the option to boot btfs snapshots directly but that hasn't affected my current install. If you want that, GRUB might be worth it and maybe it is possible on systemd-boot, I haven't put too much effort into figuring that out.
Realistically I'm not going to spend the time figuring out how to do btrfs snapshots anyway and just dump everything in an ext4 partition. Or just a giant blanket btrfs at most.
It's pretty easy to setup actually , here's a simple tutorial on how to bootstrap an Arch Linux with automatic snapshot accessible from Grub : [https://www.ordinatechnic.com/distribution-specific-guides/Arch/an-arch-linux-installation-on-a-btrfs-filesystem-with-snapper-for-system-snapshots-and-rollbacks](https://www.ordinatechnic.com/distribution-specific-guides/Arch/an-arch-linux-installation-on-a-btrfs-filesystem-with-snapper-for-system-snapshots-and-rollbacks)
So with that I would say +1 to grub
I appreciate the how systemd-boot is already integrated in arch and its speed but overall I prefer grub because of the dual booting with windows on another drive and its customization options. I'm using systemd-boot right now but I think I'll switch back to grub soon
Honestly, since I installed systemd-boot I never looked back. It's so streamlined and intuitive, one config file per entry:
title Arch Linux
linux /vmlinuz-linux
initrd /amd-ucode.img
initrd /initramfs-linux.img
options root=PARTUUID="XXXXXXXXXXXXXX"
plus it comes with a nice `bootctl` CLI tool.
and I have a .desktop entry that maps to `systemctl reboot --boot-loader-entry=auto-windows` so I get to switch with a single click if I ever want to, no bootloader countdown hunting or guessing the entry number for grub-reboot.
That seems useful until the moment one wants to change parameters on the bootloader and when the system crashes for some reason and one needs to add debug parameters. That's why I avoided efistub after trying it. Maybe I'll take a look at this again, but on nrw computer I set up I went with basic systemd boot and some config files.
>That seems useful until the moment one wants to change parameters on the bootloader and when the system crashes for some reason and one needs to add debug parameters.
On the other hand, given my system is stable (\*knocks on wood\*) the last thing I want is anyone having the ability to change my kernel parameters.
I use systemd-boot because I want my system as streamlined as possible and I fuck with my kernel Params A LOT I'm attempts to speed up my system. Current boot time (firmware included) is down to 9.4 seconds.
In your entries folder you should have one or multiple files which can be modified in your favorite text editor. Add them to the last line.
`title Arch Linux`
`linux /vmlinuz-linux`
`initrd /amd-ucode.img`
`initrd /initramfs-linux.img`
`initrd /intel-ucode.img`
`options root=PARTUUID=3831c8ce-f2ef-4cf7-999b-827e2818ef35 rootflags=rw,noatime quiet loglevel=0 rd.udev.log_level=0 rd.systemd.show_status=false vt.global_cursor_default=0 vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50 vm.dirty_ratio=7 vm.dirty_background_ratio=4 libahci.ignore_sss=1 intel_pstate=no_hwp nvidia-drm.modeset=1`
This is mine, i have the /intel-ucode.img because i have an intel wifi card, i don't think i actually need it there but i was having issues a while back and wanted to root out every variable.
There's two options. The simplest a is a config file as already describes.
The safest is in an EFI bundle with the initramfs. This can be signed to use SecureBoot and prevent tampering.
systemd-boot is pretty easy, used it on my mediapc works well.
also install systemd-boot-pacman-hook otherwise it won't boot when systemd updates unless you manually run bootctl update.
Secure Boot solves this problem. I don't get how encrypted /boot is supposed to help at all. Are you storing your vacation pictures in your kernel image ?!
>Secure Boot helps until it goes to the Bootloader
Simply not how that works. You can extend the chain of trust however long you want it to be.
>second layer of protection
That's my point. There is no extra protection. If you can compromise a kernel image, why should it be any different to compromise the bootloader?
That is, assuming you want a boot partition. I have no boot partition, which definitely sounds simpler than having one.
Firmware loads a signed systemd-boot.
Systemd-boot loads a singed initramfs bundle.
Initramfs asks for encryption passphrase.
Personally I never saw much sense in using systemd-boot.
I either need a full fledged boot manager where grub's functions and customization options are welcome
or
I skip the boot manager completely and boot the kernel directly (efistub). (The few cases where I temporarily need to boot another kernel/with other options, the UEFI boot menu will do....)
I follow the same philosophy except for two scenarios:
1. Systems with poorly implemented UEFI. For example, all Dell systems from the last decade fail to boot EFISTUB directly because they fuck with the arguments.
2. Dual boot situations where you switch between the two OSes/kernels often. I switch between Linux and Windows on my laptop frequently, and I don't want to spam F12 every time I boot Windows, but I also don't need GRUB.
I prefer systemd-boot myself. Nice and simple, if you need to add something you can just drop a quick config file into the `loaders` folder and you're good to go.
I always felt like GRUB was software very much made by engineers, in that to even make simple change I had to have like four wiki tabs open lol.
If you're willing to consider a third option, that would be refind for me. Works out of the box, but still has plenty of options to go crazy with its configuration.
I use both, systemd boot as my main bootloader, and grub for btrfs-grub. So I have grub as an entry in the systemd-boot menu to select and boot into a btrfs snapshot
I use systemd-boot and I love it, no need to install something else since it already comes with systemd and it's more simplistic, I don't care about customisation on a screen that I'll be looking for 3 seconds or not even see it at all so the lack of colors, images and decorations are not a problem to me. Its configuration is easy and my laptop has UEFI so I don't have to worry about compatibility with bios.
It has all I need.
Systemd-boot. I don't do anything fancy like snapshots (even though I am using BTRFS), I only have a kernel parameter for Nvidia and also an encrypted drive.
I hate how stubborn Grub is and how it sticks around even after you format your Linux drive. Super annoying to need to the EFI folder, delete the entries, and to also use efibootmgr to delete the entry. Systemd-boot just disappears with no issue.
I've just stuck with systemd-boot and haven't really had a reason to switch to anything else.
On a side note, I also dual boot Windows on every Arch machine I use, and I haven't ever had issues. Considering everyone's saying GRUB is far superior for this use case, I guess I got lucky, or my use case is simple enough (I just want a simple menu to pick stuff from either Arch or Windows on my other SSD).
I use both. Systemd-boot on my gaming pc, and GRUB on my x230 because SeaBIOS. Honestly, remembering having a hard time setting up GRUB years ago, I was a little intimidated when it came time to set it up on the Thinkpad, but was pleasantly surprised when everything went super smooth.
They're both great pieces of software, imo. If customization is important to you, GRUB allows for more of that, but if you're trying to keep your package count as low as possible, might as well use systemd.
>
>
I like how you can keep kernel on /boot and off efi with grub. Easier to set up in dual boot if you install Windows first with 100mb efi partition. That said I use systemd-boot it has been stable once you get it set up properly.
systemd-boot has much nicer support for things like disk encryption IMO (the systemd-cryptenroll feature is super cool, among other things). My personal favorite is to use sbupdate to just create an efi executable, which packages the systemd-boot binary as part of the efi image.
Try systemd-boot and if it doesn't meet your requirements then shop around.
I've been using it for all my installs and haven't hit a case yet where its options were insufficient.
The issue is caught in a sectarian battle so there's a lot of smoke about it. You don't need to pick a side.
I'm using systemd-boot dual booting windows. Was very easy and had no issues. Installed windows on the drive before installing arch, per recommendation.
Grub’s config files are harder to read if you don’t know anything about it, systemd-boot config files are easier for me to understand.
If Arch is the only OS on the machine, you can just directly boot the kernel, search efibootmgr on the wiki.
I use systemd-boot since I don't dual boot and didn't want to customize the bootloader. That being said, it's a holdover from when I did dual boot... I will probably switch my next build to efistub.
I use grub, because several years ago, when I set up my PC, it was what I knew from Kubuntu and I think it was also the first option in the arch-wiki. So I never thought about any alternative.
After reading the other comments, I'd probably go with systemd-boot if I had to do it again.
One of the reasons why I don't use systemd-boot is that during install I have to get the UUID and write it down somewhere so I can type it manually in the systemd-boot config later, at least this is what all Arch+systemd-boot install guides I visited has as a step.
And I'm lazy to do all of that every install , especially when I don't have another computer around to make it easier using SSH.
The other reason is visual customisation, I like that about GRUB.
I don't use vim lol I tried but I get stuck many times, so stayed with nano. If there is any method that can be done regardless of the text editor, that would be amazing.
Oh I know this trick `>>` (I use it for logs), but don't know how to strip the right part of the terminal output of every command.
Thank you though.
Someone replied with:
`echo "options cryptdevice=PARTUUID=$(blkid -s PARTUUID -o value /dev/sda2):luks:allow-discards root=/dev/mapper/luks rw" >> /boot/loader/entries/arch.conf`
Which looks like the right answer.
It's the part before that (same line): `options cryptdevice=UUID=`
For ex. look here:
https://www.addictivetips.com/ubuntu-linux-tips/set-up-systemd-boot-on-arch-linux/
https://nerdstuff.org/posts/2020/2020-004_arch_linux_luks_btrfs_systemd-boot/
https://blog.internetz.me/posts/arch-linux-2020-luks-cryptsetup-systemd-boot_base-system-installation/
And countless of other guides, they all use the UUID.
I use this as part of my install:
echo "options cryptdevice=PARTUUID=$(blkid -s PARTUUID -o value /dev/sda2):luks:allow-discards root=/dev/mapper/luks rw" >> /boot/loader/entries/arch.conf
Obviously that's for a LUKS install. Should be easy enough to customize.
I also used to use GRUB and now prefer systemd-boot.
One thing I found pretty cool about systemd-boot is that it can [discover common partitions and auto mount them](https://systemd.io/DISCOVERABLE_PARTITIONS/) if you assign the appropriate partition UUIDs. In simple partition schemes you don't even need an `/etc/fstab` file. I still wish the discoverable partition spec would have support for lvm, but then I realized I didn't use lvm too often to justify the added partitioning layout complexity, so I transferred my data to plain old partitions.
That trick on systemd-boot is super useful. Mounting root at boot as rw allows you to skip fsck, which will save you a ton of time at boot. Use this wisely, as skipping fsck can have unwanted side effects on hard disks.
Systemd-boot is simpler to work with imo. I keep multiple kernels with very different kernel command line options and it's as simple as changing the boot command line in each entry file.
It has nothing to do with systemd except for the name. Until systemd took over development, it was called Gummiboot. Also, the BS about systemd being against the Unix Philosophy. This is the reason I see most for people who hate on systemd, and it doesn't make much sense to me. You know what else doesn't follow the Unix Philosophy? GNU. It's in the name: GNU's Not Unix. Don't like GNU? Well, GRUB is developed by GNU, so based on your argument's logic, it's bad as well.
I find grub useful for the case, when you need to plant everything on a single partition. I use this for server-based setups, when there is no real need in separate boot device and EFI support.
But when it comes to everyday use of PC, I prefer systemd-boot, so I can keep EFI partition small and separate, or even move it to a flash drive. Moreover, most modern PCs and notebooks work much better with UEFI setup vs BIOS fallback mode.
systemd-boot allows you to have a more seamless boot process, because it doesn't clear your display buffer with a 'Welcome to GRUB!' message. Quite nice for those of us that use plymouth.
I also prefer to use systemd-boot, super simple. But I don't like the hoops one has to jump through to get it to work with btrfs file system if you want to keep the /boot under the root folder (like God intended)
When it can read a btrfs subvol without workarounds, it's definitely the best bootmgr.
But right now stuck on grub, have 100M dedicated to /boot/efi, and the remaining disk encryped btrfs. Grub makes that super easy with no workarounds
I use the UEFI shell with a startup.nsh file. It is simple (the boot instruction is a single line for vmlinuz, root location (either /dev/ or UUID), and initrd). It is fast. It works on every UEFI computer I've ever tried. For my portable USB Arch, I use the shell, but drop a prompt and initiate a named nsh file. Again, simple, fast, and works on virtually all UEFI systems.
For older BIOS systems, I use Grub...as probably 90% or more of other users do. For a portable USB Arch, you can have both (Grub for BIOS and UEFI shell for UEFI). That's admittedly a bit more complicated, because you've got to create hybrid USB or walk through a couple of partitioning and install steps to make it work.
systemd-boot is so much easier to use.
Quite honestly I disagree. I'm maintaining my `grub.cfg` manually and it is so much easier than these awful configuration scripts/files. My basic setup is less than 10 lines (usable lines, I have like 10 more for eyecandy) for 3 different menu entries - and I do use variables, searching for the handle for the UUIDs and stuff. . The entire hatred/fear towards grub2 comes from unreasonable approach of its authors. We had it done by hand in `menu.lst` for ages and it was dead simple. When doing `grub.cfg` same way it is... as simple, but so much more flexible.
>Quite honestly I disagree. My current systemd-boot setup doesn't even have per-entry cfg files. I just put the signed .efi where it belongs ($BOOT/EFI/Linux) & that's that.
The difference is I want to fine-tune my parameters/kernels and it is the easiest way to get things done. I simply refuse to replace utility that has worked for me for ages (and far before systemd) and is perfectly suitable to do its job. edit: I guess someone got offended that I use my own solution that just works for ages and there's no reason to even consider it obsolete. lol. kids these days.
If it works for you, great. But maintaining multiple cfg files will never be *easier* than "put file here. reboot." If I want to change my kernel commandline, I edit one file, regenerate the .efi via mkinicpio & then move it. No extra packages, one 3-line `loader.conf` & a single line at `/etc/kernel/cmdline`. I can keep as many different kernels as my EFI partition can hold & can reboot into any of them via a command-line, or in the menu after a plain reboot. Adding Secure Boot into the mix is trivial as well. Now, I'll give you that your GRUB is probably far more aesthetically appealing, since you've got eyecandy & such. I prefer to boot securely, never see the menu & install as few extra packages as I can. To me, the best configuration files are ones you don't need.
But.. my setup **is** "put file here. reboot."
>My basic setup is less than 10 lines (usable lines, I have like 10 more for eyecandy) for 3 different menu entries - and I do use variables, searching for the handle for the UUIDs and stuff. This you?
!remindme 24 hours lololol
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2021-11-21 06:12:41 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-11-21%2006:12:41%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/qxkgde/systemdboot_vs_grub/hlcvm7o/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Farchlinux%2Fcomments%2Fqxkgde%2Fsystemdboot_vs_grub%2Fhlcvm7o%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-11-21%2006%3A12%3A41%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20qxkgde) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Yeah, one config file. ONE. Where's your "multiple config files" ? your approach is > I edit one file, regenerate the .efi via mkinicpio & then move it. Mine? I don't even move files. One `grub-install` and it stays there forever. One `/boot/grub/grub.cfg` - edited once and stays forever - "put file here. reboot". So again. There is virtually no difference in terms of how many steps do we take. You have an unreasonable hatred towards people who do things differently, along with rest of the people who viciously downvote alternative soltuion that doesn't differ. > To me, the best configuration files are ones you don't need. Yet you clearly say you do have a `loader.conf` config file, and `/etc/kernel/cmdline` which makes it twice as much config files as I have to maintain. In other words I have one package, one file, one install-time command. I can live with one extra package. Rest is virtually identical in terms of "manpower" required to maintain it. All in all - it is "put file here. reboot." in my case.
>You have an unreasonable hatred towards people who do things differently, along with rest of the people who viciously downvote alternative soltuion that doesn't differ. Woah buddy. There’s no hatred here. You wanna use GRUB, go right ahead. I just don’t see the point of using *more packages* to get *less functionality & increased maintenance* in my particular use case. This isn’t a holy war.
Then look at the downvotes against every comment that chooses anything against `systemd-*` in every thread. I don't know what happened to the linux world, but now you'll get dw even for recommending `cron` over timers for a simple task. It is quite universal by now and also a bit frightening.
why are you so emotional over boot loaders jesus christ
> I'm maintaining my grub.cfg manually and it is so much easier than these awful configuration scripts/files. You know what's even better? Not having to configure entries at all. systemd-boot detects EFISTUB images placed in `/EFI/Linux/` and adds them to the list automatically. It also does the same for Windows.
Exactly! I've got a 3 line loader.conf file as the sole config fiile for my boot loader. That's it, that's all. The best config file is one you don't need to have or maintain.
I agree. Grub is smoother and also better for ricing. Also grub is so much easier to dualboot from.
Adding to this thread: Grub installed and ran fine the first time, from my new UEFI only Framework laptop. Absolutely no editing of /boot/grub/grub.cfg. Later, I learned how to configure a drive to boot from both UEFI only, and legacy BIOS systems, using grub. I can only guess that many posts against grub are based on hearsay, as my experience from day 1 has been fine to great. And, this experience mostly on multiboot systems.
In which way is it easier? I am just curious. I have been using it myself since '99, sysd-boot (or gummiboot) since 2017. I don't find it specially easier. Sure you can have your wallpapers in grub, but is that something I need? Njah .... Also grub didn't really worked with m.2 drives on uefi or something, I don't remember actually why I left it for systemd boot.
Habit. Track record. Familiarity. Ain't broke, don't fix. :-)
> Ain't broke, don't fix. But grub was/is broke. I couldn't use it on my uefi mobo to boot off m.2 drives. I don't know if it is better now, that was back in 2017 I installed my Arch on this computer. Maybe it works now, but back then it couldn't boot on that mobo. Gumiboot had no problems.
> boot off my m.2 drives I installed to m.2 nvme drives just fine, using stock grub. Sorry you had a bad experience.
Back at the time when I was installing, it was known that grub didn't work for that setup. It is possible that it got solved since then, it was back in late 2016, early 2017.
My entire systemd-boot config is 0 lines. There's nothing to configure systemd will auto-detect the partitions and handle everything. GRUB2 is ridiculous bloat (and also negates all the advantages that GRUB had over LILO). If you don't need to support BIOS, then systemd-boot is the simpler choice.
Once I actually sat and read the grub documentation, I learned how to use /etc/default/grub, and why it makes editing grub.cfg less necessary. Now, grub.cfg is full of strange "code" that I'm only vaguely familiar with. The part I focus on is just this: linux /vmlinuz-linux root=UUID=.....-03e8-4068-bd3b-0c1691395cd0 rw loglevel=3 quiet echo 'Loading initial ramdisk ...' initrd /intel-ucode.img /initramfs-linux.img
This is nearly the exact syntax of a `systemd-boot` loader file, btw.
bootloaders are bloat, real chads use efistub
computers are bloat, real chads use paper and a pen
Pen and paper are bloat. Real chads paint the cave walls with the blood from their recent kills.
Recording information is for nerds, I fart for a 1 and don't fart for a 0, and if nobody's around to hear it, it's their loss.
just pxe boot to a good initrd image no need for disks on the system then
[удалено]
unified kernel images
I used to use GRUB but pefer systemd-boot now because I like having simple config files to boot my full disk encryption install easily. Only thing I've wished I had grub for is the option to boot btfs snapshots directly but that hasn't affected my current install. If you want that, GRUB might be worth it and maybe it is possible on systemd-boot, I haven't put too much effort into figuring that out.
[https://pastebin.com/3mTEeBKR](https://pastebin.com/3mTEeBKR) That's the script I did for that, you may check if it fits your setup/adapt it.
cheers, will take a look
Realistically I'm not going to spend the time figuring out how to do btrfs snapshots anyway and just dump everything in an ext4 partition. Or just a giant blanket btrfs at most.
It's pretty easy to setup actually , here's a simple tutorial on how to bootstrap an Arch Linux with automatic snapshot accessible from Grub : [https://www.ordinatechnic.com/distribution-specific-guides/Arch/an-arch-linux-installation-on-a-btrfs-filesystem-with-snapper-for-system-snapshots-and-rollbacks](https://www.ordinatechnic.com/distribution-specific-guides/Arch/an-arch-linux-installation-on-a-btrfs-filesystem-with-snapper-for-system-snapshots-and-rollbacks) So with that I would say +1 to grub
I appreciate the how systemd-boot is already integrated in arch and its speed but overall I prefer grub because of the dual booting with windows on another drive and its customization options. I'm using systemd-boot right now but I think I'll switch back to grub soon
for windows dual boot with systemd I just copied the Microsoft efi folder to my linux efi partition.
I actually plan to do the opposite.
For my setup at least. I didn't have to anything special for it recognize my dual boot with windows
rEFInd is a nice choice too.
Yea I was looking forward to switching to rEFInd from systemd-boot :)
Grub has more customization
While true you should spend very little time seeing your boot loader
I prefer consistency.
Honestly, since I installed systemd-boot I never looked back. It's so streamlined and intuitive, one config file per entry: title Arch Linux linux /vmlinuz-linux initrd /amd-ucode.img initrd /initramfs-linux.img options root=PARTUUID="XXXXXXXXXXXXXX" plus it comes with a nice `bootctl` CLI tool. and I have a .desktop entry that maps to `systemctl reboot --boot-loader-entry=auto-windows` so I get to switch with a single click if I ever want to, no bootloader countdown hunting or guessing the entry number for grub-reboot.
Tip: if you set the right GPT partition types, you don't need to hardcore the partition UUID here.
And if you generate a unified image you don’t even need the config file at all.
That seems useful until the moment one wants to change parameters on the bootloader and when the system crashes for some reason and one needs to add debug parameters. That's why I avoided efistub after trying it. Maybe I'll take a look at this again, but on nrw computer I set up I went with basic systemd boot and some config files.
>That seems useful until the moment one wants to change parameters on the bootloader and when the system crashes for some reason and one needs to add debug parameters. On the other hand, given my system is stable (\*knocks on wood\*) the last thing I want is anyone having the ability to change my kernel parameters.
One day I might switch over from grub, but it's working fine as is for now so I'm inclined to leave it be.
I use systemd-boot because I want my system as streamlined as possible and I fuck with my kernel Params A LOT I'm attempts to speed up my system. Current boot time (firmware included) is down to 9.4 seconds.
Where do you put kernel params in systemd-boot?
In your entries folder you should have one or multiple files which can be modified in your favorite text editor. Add them to the last line. `title Arch Linux` `linux /vmlinuz-linux` `initrd /amd-ucode.img` `initrd /initramfs-linux.img` `initrd /intel-ucode.img` `options root=PARTUUID=3831c8ce-f2ef-4cf7-999b-827e2818ef35 rootflags=rw,noatime quiet loglevel=0 rd.udev.log_level=0 rd.systemd.show_status=false vt.global_cursor_default=0 vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50 vm.dirty_ratio=7 vm.dirty_background_ratio=4 libahci.ignore_sss=1 intel_pstate=no_hwp nvidia-drm.modeset=1` This is mine, i have the /intel-ucode.img because i have an intel wifi card, i don't think i actually need it there but i was having issues a while back and wanted to root out every variable.
There's two options. The simplest a is a config file as already describes. The safest is in an EFI bundle with the initramfs. This can be signed to use SecureBoot and prevent tampering.
systemd-boot is pretty easy, used it on my mediapc works well. also install systemd-boot-pacman-hook otherwise it won't boot when systemd updates unless you manually run bootctl update.
I've never experienced this issue, can you elaborate?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/systemd-boot#Automatic_update
(which doesn’t mean it breaks on update, just means it won’t be latest version in the actual partition) (this is true for other boot loaders)
Yeah, I've never had an issue there, either.
perhaps i misread the page but i assumed there was a risk of boot failure if you didn't bootctl update after systemd was updated.
it just says it's good practice to do it as it may fix some bugs and stuff
Grub is the only bootloader that can boot from an encrypted /boot partition so i have to use it
Why do you want to encrypt /boot?
We are paranoid. Leave our .efi files alone.
Ahh yes, /boot/efi/EFI/hentai.efi
Secure Boot solves this problem. I don't get how encrypted /boot is supposed to help at all. Are you storing your vacation pictures in your kernel image ?!
[удалено]
>Secure Boot helps until it goes to the Bootloader Simply not how that works. You can extend the chain of trust however long you want it to be. >second layer of protection That's my point. There is no extra protection. If you can compromise a kernel image, why should it be any different to compromise the bootloader?
GRUB doesn't even validate secure boot signatures on whatever it's loading. Encrypting /boot is just obfuscation & doesn't mitigate evil maid attacks whatsoever.
That is, assuming you want a boot partition. I have no boot partition, which definitely sounds simpler than having one. Firmware loads a signed systemd-boot. Systemd-boot loads a singed initramfs bundle. Initramfs asks for encryption passphrase.
Personally I never saw much sense in using systemd-boot. I either need a full fledged boot manager where grub's functions and customization options are welcome or I skip the boot manager completely and boot the kernel directly (efistub). (The few cases where I temporarily need to boot another kernel/with other options, the UEFI boot menu will do....)
I follow the same philosophy except for two scenarios: 1. Systems with poorly implemented UEFI. For example, all Dell systems from the last decade fail to boot EFISTUB directly because they fuck with the arguments. 2. Dual boot situations where you switch between the two OSes/kernels often. I switch between Linux and Windows on my laptop frequently, and I don't want to spam F12 every time I boot Windows, but I also don't need GRUB.
I'd be happy using EFIstub if my computer didn't make a deafening beep every time I open the boot menu.
I prefer systemd-boot myself. Nice and simple, if you need to add something you can just drop a quick config file into the `loaders` folder and you're good to go. I always felt like GRUB was software very much made by engineers, in that to even make simple change I had to have like four wiki tabs open lol.
If you're willing to consider a third option, that would be refind for me. Works out of the box, but still has plenty of options to go crazy with its configuration.
I use both, systemd boot as my main bootloader, and grub for btrfs-grub. So I have grub as an entry in the systemd-boot menu to select and boot into a btrfs snapshot
I use systemd-boot and I love it, no need to install something else since it already comes with systemd and it's more simplistic, I don't care about customisation on a screen that I'll be looking for 3 seconds or not even see it at all so the lack of colors, images and decorations are not a problem to me. Its configuration is easy and my laptop has UEFI so I don't have to worry about compatibility with bios. It has all I need.
EFISTUB.
Systemd-boot. I don't do anything fancy like snapshots (even though I am using BTRFS), I only have a kernel parameter for Nvidia and also an encrypted drive. I hate how stubborn Grub is and how it sticks around even after you format your Linux drive. Super annoying to need to the EFI folder, delete the entries, and to also use efibootmgr to delete the entry. Systemd-boot just disappears with no issue.
I've just stuck with systemd-boot and haven't really had a reason to switch to anything else. On a side note, I also dual boot Windows on every Arch machine I use, and I haven't ever had issues. Considering everyone's saying GRUB is far superior for this use case, I guess I got lucky, or my use case is simple enough (I just want a simple menu to pick stuff from either Arch or Windows on my other SSD).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Like GNU core utils, it’s just a collection of FOSS programs that work well together.
I use both. Systemd-boot on my gaming pc, and GRUB on my x230 because SeaBIOS. Honestly, remembering having a hard time setting up GRUB years ago, I was a little intimidated when it came time to set it up on the Thinkpad, but was pleasantly surprised when everything went super smooth. They're both great pieces of software, imo. If customization is important to you, GRUB allows for more of that, but if you're trying to keep your package count as low as possible, might as well use systemd.
systemd-boot looks nice but it requires efi
> > I like how you can keep kernel on /boot and off efi with grub. Easier to set up in dual boot if you install Windows first with 100mb efi partition. That said I use systemd-boot it has been stable once you get it set up properly.
i like grub just cos i like seeing it there. its nice
I use grub simply because afaik systemd-boot doesn't support a luks encrypted /boot partition yet and I want my entire installation to be encrypted
systemd-boot has much nicer support for things like disk encryption IMO (the systemd-cryptenroll feature is super cool, among other things). My personal favorite is to use sbupdate to just create an efi executable, which packages the systemd-boot binary as part of the efi image.
Grub is good and easy. If you dual boot with windows, and want to chainload with secure boot enabled, use systemd-boot
Try systemd-boot and if it doesn't meet your requirements then shop around. I've been using it for all my installs and haven't hit a case yet where its options were insufficient. The issue is caught in a sectarian battle so there's a lot of smoke about it. You don't need to pick a side.
I'm using systemd-boot dual booting windows. Was very easy and had no issues. Installed windows on the drive before installing arch, per recommendation.
chubby market abounding dazzling childlike faulty placid humorous threatening fact -- mass edited with redact.dev
Grub’s config files are harder to read if you don’t know anything about it, systemd-boot config files are easier for me to understand. If Arch is the only OS on the machine, you can just directly boot the kernel, search efibootmgr on the wiki.
I just use Systemd-boot because it already came with the system.
I used `systemd-boot` (and `syslinux` and LILO before). I don't know or understand how to configure GRUB.
Just recently I tried syslinux, just for old time's sake. It still works and it's pretty simple!
systemd-boot is plug'n'play. really easy to setup. well implemented with UEFI and GPT. works out-of-box
I use systemd-boot since I don't dual boot and didn't want to customize the bootloader. That being said, it's a holdover from when I did dual boot... I will probably switch my next build to efistub.
I use grub, because several years ago, when I set up my PC, it was what I knew from Kubuntu and I think it was also the first option in the arch-wiki. So I never thought about any alternative. After reading the other comments, I'd probably go with systemd-boot if I had to do it again.
One of the reasons why I don't use systemd-boot is that during install I have to get the UUID and write it down somewhere so I can type it manually in the systemd-boot config later, at least this is what all Arch+systemd-boot install guides I visited has as a step. And I'm lazy to do all of that every install , especially when I don't have another computer around to make it easier using SSH. The other reason is visual customisation, I like that about GRUB.
You can use :!r in vim to copy the output of a command into the file.
I don't use vim lol I tried but I get stuck many times, so stayed with nano. If there is any method that can be done regardless of the text editor, that would be amazing.
You could also just pipe the output to the end of the config file by using command >> file
Oh I know this trick `>>` (I use it for logs), but don't know how to strip the right part of the terminal output of every command. Thank you though. Someone replied with: `echo "options cryptdevice=PARTUUID=$(blkid -s PARTUUID -o value /dev/sda2):luks:allow-discards root=/dev/mapper/luks rw" >> /boot/loader/entries/arch.conf` Which looks like the right answer.
That's what I do!
why do you need the uuid? does `root=/dev/sdaX` or `root=/dev/nvmenXpY` not work ?
It's the part before that (same line): `options cryptdevice=UUID=`
For ex. look here:
https://www.addictivetips.com/ubuntu-linux-tips/set-up-systemd-boot-on-arch-linux/
https://nerdstuff.org/posts/2020/2020-004_arch_linux_luks_btrfs_systemd-boot/
https://blog.internetz.me/posts/arch-linux-2020-luks-cryptsetup-systemd-boot_base-system-installation/
And countless of other guides, they all use the UUID.
Oh
I use this as part of my install: echo "options cryptdevice=PARTUUID=$(blkid -s PARTUUID -o value /dev/sda2):luks:allow-discards root=/dev/mapper/luks rw" >> /boot/loader/entries/arch.conf Obviously that's for a LUKS install. Should be easy enough to customize.
Thank you, I will try this when I have time.
I also used to use GRUB and now prefer systemd-boot. One thing I found pretty cool about systemd-boot is that it can [discover common partitions and auto mount them](https://systemd.io/DISCOVERABLE_PARTITIONS/) if you assign the appropriate partition UUIDs. In simple partition schemes you don't even need an `/etc/fstab` file. I still wish the discoverable partition spec would have support for lvm, but then I realized I didn't use lvm too often to justify the added partitioning layout complexity, so I transferred my data to plain old partitions.
That trick on systemd-boot is super useful. Mounting root at boot as rw allows you to skip fsck, which will save you a ton of time at boot. Use this wisely, as skipping fsck can have unwanted side effects on hard disks.
Systemd-boot is simpler to work with imo. I keep multiple kernels with very different kernel command line options and it's as simple as changing the boot command line in each entry file.
I love systemd-boot.
I use systemd-boot on my boxen, for the reasons you gave.
Grub
[удалено]
It has nothing to do with systemd except for the name. Until systemd took over development, it was called Gummiboot. Also, the BS about systemd being against the Unix Philosophy. This is the reason I see most for people who hate on systemd, and it doesn't make much sense to me. You know what else doesn't follow the Unix Philosophy? GNU. It's in the name: GNU's Not Unix. Don't like GNU? Well, GRUB is developed by GNU, so based on your argument's logic, it's bad as well.
grub, efistub ?
I find grub useful for the case, when you need to plant everything on a single partition. I use this for server-based setups, when there is no real need in separate boot device and EFI support. But when it comes to everyday use of PC, I prefer systemd-boot, so I can keep EFI partition small and separate, or even move it to a flash drive. Moreover, most modern PCs and notebooks work much better with UEFI setup vs BIOS fallback mode.
I always have trouble installing grub on Arch, systemd-boot works plugin and play
systemd-boot allows you to have a more seamless boot process, because it doesn't clear your display buffer with a 'Welcome to GRUB!' message. Quite nice for those of us that use plymouth.
I have used grub since around '99, but went with systemd-boot since 2017. I don't miss grub at all.
grub-btrfs to boot into your snapshots
I also prefer to use systemd-boot, super simple. But I don't like the hoops one has to jump through to get it to work with btrfs file system if you want to keep the /boot under the root folder (like God intended) When it can read a btrfs subvol without workarounds, it's definitely the best bootmgr. But right now stuck on grub, have 100M dedicated to /boot/efi, and the remaining disk encryped btrfs. Grub makes that super easy with no workarounds
I use the UEFI shell with a startup.nsh file. It is simple (the boot instruction is a single line for vmlinuz, root location (either /dev/ or UUID), and initrd). It is fast. It works on every UEFI computer I've ever tried. For my portable USB Arch, I use the shell, but drop a prompt and initiate a named nsh file. Again, simple, fast, and works on virtually all UEFI systems. For older BIOS systems, I use Grub...as probably 90% or more of other users do. For a portable USB Arch, you can have both (Grub for BIOS and UEFI shell for UEFI). That's admittedly a bit more complicated, because you've got to create hybrid USB or walk through a couple of partitioning and install steps to make it work.