![]() ![]() Say, if this were to be asked in other way i.e. This question aimed to find out more toward fundamental reasons, rather than just EFI support. The answer is not because either one supports EFI properly. What answer is not The comment thread below already gave some idea, but I ought to make clear here. I have added (or scroll down) to explain better on 64-bit ISO image. It can use Syslinux, but it needs GRUB to boot. What are the differences bewteen using ISOs vs extracting distributions in. Hence, to rephrase my question, what are the differences which made Ubuntu to use GRUB and SYSLINUX on its ISO images? Why not just use either one instead? For clarification This question has been somehow confusing due to my lack of clarification and hardware availability. But when booting from 64-bit ISO image, GRUB is used instead (the black and white screen, clearly showing GNU GRUB version. When booting from 32-bit ISO image, it is said that SYSLINUX handles the boot process (the boot which shows beautiful splash screen, with progress dot animation). This question is related to my finding that Ubuntu and its derivative uses both SYSLINUX and GRUB bootloaders on ISO images for Desktop releases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |