I am still new to Linux, what is the difference between using grub and using bootctl. currently I am using bootctl and it works fine, I have used grub in the past it works fine, does it really make a difference? I have installed Arch twice now without an installer. The first time using bios and grub the second I used uefi and bootctl.
Can I switch without reinstalling the entire system? Not going to right this moment just useful information, may play around with it later.
I know there are others, but these are the 2 I have experience with so far. Everyone says to use Grub and I just wanted to know why.
Edit: Can you change the look for bootctl? learning to rice i3wm want to make the start up match.
I personally prefer bootctl because its much cleaner and easier to understand. I've solved boot problems with bootctl on multiple occasions without any need for the web while grub required lots of trial and error every single time.
Yes, you can switch bootloaders without reinstalling the entire system - just repeat the steps from the installation guide. There's no point to doing this though. If your setup works, why change it?
I seem to see this a lot, from what I have researched since i post this a good amount of people really like bootctl.
didn't know that thanks for the information.
I will keep in mind, may use grub because learning one right now would be easier and i have a few older computers without uefi support. may learn more about grub because of this.
Good to know, right now I switched to grub only because I am more use to it like everyone else, since this is my first time with another option became interested.
Just thought it would be nice to know not really doing it, last night I reinstalled Arch just to make sure I have the processes down, used grub. Will keep it for now since i have computers without uefi support.
i know you can change the look of grub, can you change the look for bootctl? Learning to rice i3wm and want to make the grub menu match, could i do the same with bootctl?