GRUB or Syslinux?

[PingPing]

I've remastered TCL and set up a LiveUSB that starts apache2.tce on boot.
Everything loads into RAM so that I can simply remove the LiveUSB stick once it's booted.
I'm using it as my home web server.
I've used Syslinux as my bootloader and was wondering if there's any point in using GRUB instead.
I don't think there is, but I'm interested to hear the views of others.

[curaga]

It's a matter of preference really. Both can do graphics, both can be patched with the gfxboot patch from Suse.
I prefer grub though, because with it I can edit the existing options (with syslinux one can only add more), or boot something arbitrary from the command line, or install grub to a computer with a blacked mbr.

The grub command line can also be used to view files (it has cat), and it has tab-completion

[nickispeaki]

wow! i use only grub. SO usually for me. Just edit in sudo /boot/grub/menu.lst
and there are  a lot of docs! as i see new distro cames this grub. I don't undestand only one thing - why have grub 0.9 not 1.x version? 

[curaga]

The 0.9 series is stable - the 1.9x are betas for grub 2.

[nickispeaki]

why 0.9? not 1.0? is this secret of grub stability? 

[curaga]

1.0 was never released, for some reason. Maybe it's just the general hate towards proprietary software conventions; version numbers matter nada in FOSS. Every other release is often labeled beta and proudly

[mikshaw]

Syslinux may be easier to use with USB/CD, but I can't think of any benefits other than that and its small size.

Grub can be password protected. Maybe Syslinux can too, but I've never seen anything about it.
Syslinux and Isolinux are not made for Linux filesystems.
After many times using Grub's ability to boot a selection created or modified at runtime, I don't think I would like being without it.

[notfed]

GRUB 0.xx is considered to be "GRUB Legacy", or as I call it, "GRUB1" ]
    Website for GRUB1: http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-legacy.en.html

GRUB 1.xx is considered to be "GRUB2".
    Website for GRUB2: http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-2.en.html 

Here's a link where you can download a handful of well-tested versions of both GRUB1 and GRUB2: ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/grub/
There is a wiki for GRUB2, at http://grub.enbug.org/, but I haven't seen hardly any updates for YEARS!

GRUB2 is still being worked on. On certain occasions, I was curious about its development and have become familiar with its source code.  It's very well designed from the start, and the developers are extremely careful not to introduce any new bugs.  This is why it's constantly in the beta stages.

IMHO, despite the fact that it's still "beta", I think GRUB2 is already done and ready for use.  It's completely stable, at least on x86 architectures, and I've never had it crash or do anything out of the ordinary.  The only real issue is (again, in my opinion)  its lack of documentation, and I'm pretty sure this stems from the fact that some of the lead developers are not native English speakers! 

If you want to try it (GRUB2) out for the first time, I recommend doing it on a brand new blank disk, ideally a cheap USB flash drive, where you can test it out and get comfortable with it.  It's possible to learn to use it just by diving in and testing stuff out.

Warning: A bootloader has to write to the MBR, and it will overwrite the old MBR.  If you try to install GRUB2 to your main hard drive before you know how to use GRUB2, you will most definitely find yourself bashing your head against the keyboard (I try to do this at least once a day).  Also, I find it particularly frustrating when people speak of GRUB without acknowledging which version they're talking about: the result is mass confusion around the internet when it comes to GRUB.  So make sure you don't add to the confusion: read the documentation.