Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming IT Technology

Wikia Acquires Grub, Releases it Under Open Source 119

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the more-fodder-for-the-cannons dept.
An anonymous reader writes "During a keynote address at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference (OSCON), Jimmy Wales announced that Wikia has acquired Grub, the original visionary distributed search project, from LookSmart and released it under an open source license for the first time in four years. Grub operates under a model of users donating their personal computing resources towards a common goal, and is available for download and testing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikia Acquires Grub, Releases it Under Open Source

Comments Filter:
  • FIST SPORT (Score:5, Funny)

    by ringbarer (545020) on Monday July 30, 2007 @01:38PM (#20045161) Homepage Journal
    Oh fuck! Does this mean I have to read [Citation Needed] every time I boot up?
    • Re:FIST SPORT (Score:5, Informative)

      by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday July 30, 2007 @01:42PM (#20045231) Journal
      Not the bootloader
      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Hatta (162192)
        I wish someone would acquire the GRUB, and close it. That piece of crap has caused me more pain than any other open source software. If lilo broke, well just grab a boot disk and rerun it. When (not if) grub breaks, god help you trying to figure out what to do.

        I admit, grub is nice when it automagically works. The problem is when it doesn't. GRUB failures are the only reason I reinstall operating systems anymore.
        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by VagaStorm (691999)
          I think what your looking for is your boot disk and the command grub-install --some_parameter_to_to_set_root_directory :p
          • by Hatta (162192)
            Except when it doesn't work. I had a machine that I could run grub-install on all day, with a valid menu.lst, it would pretend to work and then on reboot... nothing. I tried manually updating it with setup(hd0), same thing. I spent 4 or 5 days in #grub trying to get help, all I got was ignored.
            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by caluml (551744)
              I also had a problem with Grub that I spent about 2 days trying to fix. I can't remember now exactly what it was, but it was something to do with a raid controller, Reiserfs/XFS, and something else.
              And when you're building a server, you can't sit searching the web all day.
              Lilo works. I'm not going back to Grub.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by MoxFulder (159829)

          I wish someone would acquire the GRUB, and close it. That piece of crap has caused me more pain than any other open source software. If lilo broke, well just grab a boot disk and rerun it. When (not if) grub breaks, god help you trying to figure out what to do.

          Are you kidding me? On most Linux systems, you can just run update-grub to reinstall the first-stage bootloader (or grub-install on some). To adjust its settings, you need only edit the file /boot/grub/menu.lst ... you don't even have to re-run GRUB after editing that file.

          Unlike Lilo, GRUB offers a full-featured command line so that you can edit your boot settings if it doesn't quite work right. No need for a rescue disk almost ever. GRUB reads it configuration file at boot time, unlike LILO which hid

          • Your experiences don't overrule other people's experiences. I'm glad GRUB works for you, and when it worked for me I liked it too - but I've had a lot of problems with it as well, and while it is quite powerful it's also quite complicated to use. At least it was when I tried it. You really seem to have to understand what the various stages of the bootloader are in order to use the "full featured command line", or to get it installed in any slightly non-"standard" environment.

            I've had my perfectly working

            • by Sproggit (18426)
              Seconded
              Of about 12 machines of different architectures that I own and that run linux, a grand total of 1 (my work laptop) dual boots and uses GRUB.
              Every other machine only runs linux, and only uses lilo (or silo, or milo).

              Sproggg
          • by ultranova (717540)

            If we could all use LinuxBIOS, which can boot Linux or *BSD or Windows directly, we wouldn't need any separate bootloader software.

            Using separate bootloeader software is what made running Linux or *BSD on x86 possible in the first place. Hardcoding OS loading code into BIOS, beyond the absolute minimum neccessary, is a really bad idea, since it prevents you from running any OS the BIOS loader doesn't support.

            • by MoxFulder (159829)

              If we could all use LinuxBIOS, which can boot Linux or *BSD or Windows directly, we wouldn't need any separate bootloader software.

              Using separate bootloeader software is what made running Linux or *BSD on x86 possible in the first place. Hardcoding OS loading code into BIOS, beyond the absolute minimum neccessary, is a really bad idea, since it prevents you from running any OS the BIOS loader doesn't support.

              Not if the BIOS loader is designed to be extremely flexible and customizable, or if the BIOS itself is open source and can be easily updated to support new operating system :-)

              • by ultranova (717540)

                Not if the BIOS loader is designed to be extremely flexible and customizable, or if the BIOS itself is open source and can be easily updated to support new operating system :-)

                Customizability implies complexity. I don't think such a system would actually be any more reliable than LiLo or GRUB; in fact it would be more complex, since nothing could be hard-coded. And finally, I simply fail to see the advantage of putting the OS loader into the BIOS chip rather than at the beginning of the hard disk.

        • by X0563511 (793323)
          You let grub automatically configure itself? Hell no! I install and configure GRUB myself. I have never had a problem once I fixed my own issues (usually typos in the config file or other stupid mistakes - that's why you keep a bootable disk handy. It's nice to just load up a bootdisk and edit a text file, rather than find and run the appropriate LILO executable...)

          I don't really like LILO, as it is nowhere near as flexible in my experience, but it works fine as well.

          As a matter of fact, I don't remember ha
        • by Starayo (989319)
          Super Grub Disk [linex.org] is extremely easy to use and... Well, I assume it can fix a lot of stuff. It sure restored GRUB after I reinstalled windows.
          • A poster above described an experience where it appeared grub had installed correctly, but when he rebooted, there was no bootloader. He tried many times with the same result. When I had the same experience once, I downloaded and burned supergrub which worked the first time. I carry it with me now.

    • by Zekasu (1059298)
      GRUB != Grub, apparently. Could've fooled me, however.
  • Meh... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by lixee (863589)
    Real mean use Lilo. Oh, wait...nevermind.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Real men use Grub. Lilo is easier and limited. Surely not for real men.
    • Real mean use Lilo. Oh, wait...nevermind.
      You misspelled BTX.
    • by ultranova (717540)

      Real mean use Lilo.

      Actually, if the set of bootloaders contains two entries (LiLo and GRUB), then the mean is the middle point between them.

  • Lunch Time (Score:5, Funny)

    by n1ckml007 (683046) on Monday July 30, 2007 @01:43PM (#20045233)
    That's funny, I ALSO just acquired some grub, yum yum.
  • Uh-oh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dedazo (737510) on Monday July 30, 2007 @01:43PM (#20045245) Journal
    This might be bad news for Google. WP is about the only "organization" capable of putting together a human-vetted search with the Grub software. I have no idea of people will go for that sort of thing (I like my search results from an algorithm, thanks) but if they do, and the search results work correctly (that relevance is what made Google to begin with) then Google might just be in trouble.

    Of course at that point Google will buy Wikia and whatever other properties seem relevant... and then Google will have completed the transition from "do no evil" to "if you can't beat them, buy them" that started with YouTube.

    Of course this might not be the case, but I have trouble trying to come up with a reason why Wikia might want something like Grub.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by anilg (961244)
      This might be bad news for Google.

      Not if you use smileys, it isn't! ;) ;) :)

    • Google will have completed the transition from "do no evil" to "if you can't beat them, buy them" that started with YouTube.

      How is that evil?

      Well, actually, in the case of YouTube, it kind of is -- given that they still haven't unified YouTube with Google Video, and they both still use Flash excessively. (Flash does many things well; a media player isn't one of them.)

    • Exactly! And as Wikipedia and Google may be mutual benefitors [makarevitch.org]...
    • by midom (535130)
      I might be redundant, but Wikia engineering team is different from Wikipedia engineering team. Wikia organization is different from Wikimedia Foundation organization. Jimmy is working nowadays on Wikia, not Wikipedia, so of course, it is easy to misinterpret. WP is not doing with that anything (though of course, having it opensourced is interesting).
  • So? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DogDude (805747)
    It's a nice idea, but badly implemented. Search doesn't even work (I've tried it before, and it's never worked), and on top of that, today, search throws a bunch of mySQL errors (mySQL? for a search engine?!?!). It's a nice idea, and maybe this group will breathe some life into it, but right now, grub is doa, as far as I'm concerned.

    \ I'll be excited if they make a working search engine. I'll be even more excited if they do work on the searching algorithms, which is what makes or breaks search engines
    • by mhall119 (1035984)

      mySQL? for a search engine?!?!
      Search engines need fast searching and reads over large amounts of data, which database would you suggest they use?
      • by cmacb (547347)

        Search engines need fast searching and reads over large amounts of data, which database would you suggest they use?


        vi?

        If you can use a boot loader I would think a flat file editor would be a big advancement.
      • by mini me (132455)
        A database designed for searching? Relational databases traditionally aren't all that well suited for search operations.
      • by j-pimp (177072)

        Search engines need fast searching and reads over large amounts of data, which database would you suggest they use?

        Ldap?

        • by mhall119 (1035984)
          In my experience, not so good at fast searching (especially with wildcards) and lots of data, but I guess that all depends on your LDAP implementation.

          Still, LDAP isn't a database.
          • by j-pimp (177072)

            In my experience, not so good at fast searching (especially with wildcards) and lots of data, but I guess that all depends on your LDAP implementation.

            Still, LDAP isn't a database.

            I know LDAP isn't a database, and while I've dealt with LDAP, I never had the opportunity to compare LDAP to a database in a meaningful way. Being its hard enough to get reasonable benchmarks for side by side database comparisons, or even something like file compression software, I doubt that will ever happen.

      • Map/Reduce [wikipedia.org]? (See also: Hadoop [wikipedia.org])
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by truthsearch (249536)
      I'll be even more excited if they do work on the searching algorithms, which is what makes or breaks search engines, not the amount of content they have.

      So you're saying it's not the size that matters, but how they use it.

      Interesting. I'm sure I've heard this somewhere before...
  • I wonder if they have any plans to be part of the BOINC project [berkeley.edu]. After being a seti@home user for several years, then finally following it over to BOINC, I can't help but think of BOINC every time I hear something about distributed computing.

    I know BOINC isn't the end-all-be-all of distributed computing, but it seems they gathered a large following once Seti@home project moved there, especially with what I would newbies or laymen to distributed computing in general. It might seem a smart move considering th
  • wait a second (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wwmedia (950346) on Monday July 30, 2007 @02:01PM (#20045503)
    WIKIA is a for profit company!

    so they want to use other peoples spare CPU cycles to build an empire on top without spending money on servers?

    rofl!

    all them spare cpu cycles would be better used for distributed research like Folding@Home and other @home projects
    • by catbutt (469582)
      People don't have to participate if they don't want to.

      Some people might decide that they like having a good alternative to google. The interesting thing is, if the company gets greedy (say, but putting too many ads, or charging too much to advertisers), it's likely that people will stop helping them out. That is a powerful check on them that doesn't apply to google and others.

      Another thing to think about: if they go public, you can always buy their stock, and then let them use your resources....not q
    • Re:wait a second (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706) on Monday July 30, 2007 @02:59PM (#20046379) Journal
      I use Google search, which is produced by Google Inc., a for-profit company. I use the search "for free," but then again I "pay" with my eyeballs, since the search pages have ads. This is a trade-off that I (and many others) are willing to make.

      So why is it so crazy to think that users would be willing to participate in a search engine where you "pay" with your spare CPU cycles? If the search engine generates useful results, it seems like a fair trade-off for me.

      I'm not sure what Wikia's business model is here. It's probably not ads, since it would be difficult to reliably enforce and bill an ad-pushing system using software that is open-source and a network that is peer-to-peer. Probably they hope that this will drive more traffic to Wikia projects, or somesuch.

      But, ultimately, I don't see what's so crazy about a for-profit company and end users coming to a mutually beneficial agreement. I donate CPU cycles and bandwidth, and get access to search results. Sounds fair to me. If the result is useful and the terms-of-use not onerous, most users will happily use it.
      • So why is it so crazy to think that users would be willing to participate in a search engine where you "pay" with your spare CPU cycles? If the search engine generates useful results, it seems like a fair trade-off for me.

        If there was not a search engine that already filled these needs, with the only "price" being the viewing of inobtrusive ads, how is giving up my spare CPU cycles to receive the same thing from another source a fair trade? This also assumes that wikia won't begin using ads of their own, which would mean I'm "paying" twice. (CPU + ads)

        • You said it yourself: giving up your spare CPU cycles. i.e. something you're not even using! Why would you have a sad over that? It's not as if you can horde them in a box and use them later when you need some extra grunt.

          • There's no such thing as "spare" CPU cycles, as in computations that will be done whether you ask for them or not. Either your computer is computing, or it's idle. When it's idle, it uses less electricity. Say you decide to run one of these background tasks instead of letting it ever go idle. That means you're actually paying (in higher electricity bills) to run these programs. The benefit of better searches may be worth it to you, but don't think there is no cost to you whatsoever.
    • They haven't mentioned a license anywhere, but if it is Open Source more likely than not you can take the source and make your own non-profit with it.
    • Re:wait a second (Score:4, Informative)

      by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday July 30, 2007 @03:53PM (#20047191)
      Wikia is the for-profit arm of Wikimedia. A large amount of Wikia profits help cover Wikimedia costs, and I'm pretty sure Wikia pays a Mediawiki developer. It also pays the salaries of some people who spend a lot of time administering Wikimedia, including Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.

      There are way too many uses of "wiki" in that paragraph...

      Anyhow, my point is that while it's a for-profit, it's still "for the public good" in a sense, since it exists to support non-profits, and thus it's not crazy to donate them CPU cycles.
      • i would rather see 100,000 servers in a datacenter "google style" dedicated to number crunching with operating systems and hardware tuned for servers and efficiency rather than 1,000,000 home pcs wasting away electricity and bandwidth

        or at least have them home pcs doing something usefull like folding proteins or other distributed medical projects that will help people

        the world doesnt need Yet Another Search Engine

        google, live and yahoo do a great job already
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Torvaun (1040898)
          The world doesn't need Yet Another Operating System

          Whatever you're doing is already covered pretty well by something already out there. See the foolishness of that statement?

          Yes. The existing search engines do a pretty good job. However, I've been brainstorming lately to try and figure out what the next big thing will be for search engines (so I can buy a load of stock when something shows up that does this) and the thing I keep coming back to is context. When I search for Chaos Theory, am I looki
          • by Slithe (894946)
            You might want to try clusty [clusty.com]. It has a system akin to what you describe.
          • Mooter [mooter.com] is (I think) older than Clusty and also does what you describe. It's not bad either (from the little I have used it in the past). It's just really hard to get any market share with so much competition.
      • by gad_zuki! (70830)
        Wikia is the for-profit arm of Wikimedia. A large amount of Wikia profits help cover Wikimedia costs, and I'm pretty sure Wikia pays a Mediawiki developer.

        Who then get paid in Wikidollars for every Wikihour worked. If they add the prefix Wiki to their variables they get double pay.
      • They are completely separate entities. The only relationship is that Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, started this venture with Angela Beesley, a former member of the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors.

        There is some synergy, partly because of the fact that Jimmy Wales runs Wikia and sort-of runs Wikimedia, partly because Wikia needs community goodwill to succeed, and partly because Wikia uses the MediaWiki software on its own servers so has an interest in it working well. However it isn't anywhere nea
      • Anyhow, my point is that while it's a for-profit, it's still "for the public good" in a sense, since it exists to support non-profits, and thus it's not crazy to donate them CPU cycles.
        Kind of how Microsoft's monopoly power is used to support the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

        Microsoft is a force of good in the universe! Who knew!?
      • by at_18 (224304)
        Wikia is the for-profit arm of Wikimedia. A large amount of Wikia profits help cover Wikimedia costs,

        Nope. Wikia is a separate entity from the Wikimedia Foundation. And all Wikimedia cash comes from donations, not from Wikia's accounts.
      • by midom (535130)
        Wikia is not for-profit arm of Wikimedia. It is completely separate organization, just founders are same (talk about serial entrepreneurs :). Wikia does not pay any core mediawiki developer, and, uhm, Wikia does not pay Jimbo or Angela _for_ Wikipedia/Wikimedia work.
    • by wikinerd (809585)
      If the company runs on open-source tools, then you can use the same tools to run your own shop. However, the power of a company lies in its people and its culture, not its tools, and it's very difficult to copy a community and its culture.
  • Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday July 30, 2007 @02:06PM (#20045575)
    I just loaded this new grub on my system. I got a strange new boot menu:

    1. Fedora Core 7 (redirected from Red Hat)
      [Note: This selection may be too technical for the average user. Please help revise to improve.]
    2. Microsoft Windows Vista (redirected from Longhorn)
      [Note: This entry has been locked from new and anonymous users due to ongoing controversy. See also: WGA]
    3. Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (redirected from Win98)
      [Note: This OS requires cleanup to conform to quality standards. Please get involved.]
    4. FreeBSD 6.2
      [Note: Link appears dead. This has been tagged since July, 2007]
    5. MSDOS 5.11(redirected from DOS)
      [This operating system is a stub. Please help to expand and improve it. This entry has been tagged since 1981]
    Use the up and down arrow keys to make a selection, press Enter to boot.
  • by Animats (122034) on Monday July 30, 2007 @02:11PM (#20045679) Homepage

    Wikia is a for-profit company. Users running portions of their crawler should be paid. At least in stock of the company. Otherwise it's a ripoff. It's reminiscent of Kazaa's approach to "peer to peer": user machines do the work; Kazaa collects the money.

    Distributing the web crawl isn't that big a win. The crawl is a batch job, but replying to search requests is a near real time application. The expensive part of a search engine is the system that generates fast search responses. That's where you need the systems with gigabytes of RAM and tight coupling to the other machines of the cluster.

    Doing the web crawl on user machines offloads some of the effort, but not all that much of it. If you want to cut crawl costs, some of the query machines can be devoted to crawling during slow periods.

    Remember, you can't trust the client. Web spammers can modify their copies of the crawler to report extra, phony links to their web sites and boost their stats. This gives a whole new meaning to the term "link farming". Until Wikia, there was no easy way for "search engine optimization" types to mess with the internals of the search engine. Now there is.

    Besides, what's the selling point? "Our search costs less to use than Google?" Hello?

    • by ozamosi (615254)
      This is a part of Wikias search engine project, that is supposed to beat Googles web search monopoly. Everything will be open sourced, and there will be a public protocol for communicating between different users. The goal isn't to make one search engine to beat Google, but to create an infrastructure to make it really easy to create lots of search engines, where each is really good at something (say, tech blogs, or the semantic web, or NGO:s, or whatever). The different search engine front ends are suppose
    • "We will be posting the complete, current codebase as soon as possible, here on Grub.org"

      Presuming this includes the server code, this isn't as bad as it sounds. Yes, Wikia is for profit, but so are IBM and Red Hat. So long as there is a public license on the code, they're at least significantly lowering the barriers to entry and empowering users to revolt if they can't trust Wikia, which is more than you can say for Google. Even if users don't revolt and go elsewhere, the pressure exerted on Wikia to stay
    • Gosh I guess the Wikia people and investors are really stupid, that they failed to see what any layman can come up with after reading that announcement. Amazing they didn't consider those issues before, and we have to read the clear truth on Slashdot instead. Either that, or:
      >Wikia is a ... reminiscent of Kazaa
      Comparing Kazaa to Wikia is rather over the top as Wikia doesn't install spyware and ad-serving crap. A bit of FUD?

      >Distributing the web crawl isn't that big a win
      >Besides, what's the s
      • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:03PM (#20047387)
        kquote>Comparing Kazaa to Wikia is rather over the top as Wikia doesn't install spyware and ad-serving crap. A bit of FUD?

        That's not the part the parent is comparing. The parent's comparison has NOTHING to do with the spyware issue. It has to do with using the "communities" resources to make money without paying for those resources. But hey, if *you* like to work for free, have at it.

    • by asylumx (881307)
      There are two definitions to the term free...

      You may have heard the metaphors here:

      1. Free as in Beer.
      2. Free as in Speech.

      While Google has #1 covered, #2 is still restricted by them as you do not have any idea how they are picking your results, nor what they are doing with your search terms (citation needed for the AOL Leak...)
  • Oh, great, so we get to extend the now-infamous Wiki popularity club to searches.
  • FTFA:

    Wikia has aquired the Grub sourcecode from LookSmart. We will be posting the complete, current codebase as soon as possible, here on Grub.org. In the meantime, signup and stay tuned to developments regarding getting Grub going again.

    Translation: Development had slowed to a SNAIL's pace(*), but now casting off its SHELL, we bring you a new and improved (TM) GRUB!

    (*) From: Member Statistics [grub.org] (as of 20070730 at 14:47 EDT)

    Members Overview (see all)
    Total members: 1,049
    Oldest member: 14,016 days
    Active this month: 2

    Let's see here:

    dc --expression="2k 14016 365.25 / f"

    38.3737 YEARS!

  • I hope they are successful so I can witness a fair fight to the death between man (Wikia) and machine (Google). My bet is machine.
  • How does this compare to http://www.yacy.net/yacy/ [yacy.net] ?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TeknoHog (164938)
      This Grub seems to be a human-edited system not unlike Wikipedia. I'm much more interested in algorithmic search, which is why your YaCy link was most welcome :) Another distributed search I've come across is Majestic-12 [majestic12.co.uk].
  • Welcome Back Grubby (Score:5, Informative)

    by zokord (1135057) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:02PM (#20048441)
    I'm the guy that started Grub back in 1999. In 2003, after getting a little bit of press, I sold the company to LookSmart. I was hoping for a continuation of the OS license for Grub, and the financial backing of a larger company that could help develop the product out to it's logical conclusion - distributed, open search.

    Unfortunately that didn't happen with the situation, and I decided to move on to other opportunities. Now here I am again, and I fully support what Wikia is doing with Grub, and what their resources can do for the project and the problem it can solve.

    Myself (Kord Campbell), Igor Stojanovski and Ledio Ago (both who work at Splunk BTW) are three original founders of Grub. We are now helping Wikia out with getting it up and running, and explaining how things work (or don't) and will continue spending a bit of time helping out where we can as the project matures.

    I would like to point out that Grub itself isn't all that interesting right now. About all it does is distribute jobs that consist of URLs to crawl. Yes, something similar could be done with BOINK. Yes, nothing is being done with the crawled data. Yes, it breaks occasionally and it's full of bugs.

    However, it's a start. It's the first pass at fully distributing the job of search, and putting it where it belongs - in the commons. Search doesn't belong to Google, or Wikia, it belongs to everyone. It's your data, and it should be your search engine crawling, indexing and searching that data - not some monolithic profit hungry company.

    Go and read the page on search over at Wikia: http://search.wikia.com/ [wikia.com] - Jer Miller (worked on Jabber) explains what they have in mind for Atlas. It's a fully distributed, OS, open protocol dream of making better search. Like Wikipedia (which is non-profit), Jimmy Wales wants search to be open, and community driven/managed - it's not about making gobs of money off your CPU/Bandwidth - it's about making better search for everyone.

    Ideally the current Grub clients/server will go away, and be replaced with something better. For now, you have to crawl before you walk, and you have to walk before you run. Given time, and support from the OS community, I'm sure Wikia will do the right thing here.

    If you want to get involved and help out, start by hitting the wiki and contributing your thoughts. We are going to need coders working on different aspects of the project as well, so think about volunteering in your particular area of expertise.
  • I wonder if Wikia will have controls over their search terms? What will "Wikipedia admin real name" turn up?
  • Using "spare" computer cycles costs money. Hook up a power meter to your computer and check it out. My computer uses more than 50 extra watts during computation intensive tasks (not even graphics) than when the processor is idle. At 20 hours a day of extra processing cycles (if you would normally have your computer on but processor idle during those times) at 10 cents per kilowatt hour would be just about 10 cents per day, or $3 a month added to your electric bill. It would probably be more efficient fo
  • Given that Grub is Gnu-branded, and Debian installs it *by default*, I was practically certain that it was open-source already (though I don't happen to actually _know_ which license, though since it's Gnu-branded I bet I could venture a guess...) and maintained by the FSF. Now here we have Wikia acquiring Grub and releasing it under an open-source license. Must be a different Grub, but that still leaves room for lots of confusion.

    What I want to know is, will Grub be released under the *same* open-source
  • Grub is a boot loader not a search tool...
    You've got your wires crossed again...

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam

Working...