ETA: It is also my understanding that LILO fundamentally does not support reading filesystems, while Canonical want to keep SquashFS, among others. Adding support for that to LILO, along with whatever other features are missing, would likely be a major undertaking

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess they have their own fork of it?

Upstream hasn’t seen a new release, nor any commits, since 2015: https://lilo.joonet.de/

Perhaps.
Has lilo needed any changes, though?
If it hasn't, then no commits and no feature creep.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Development stopped not because LILO didn’t need any changes, but because of its limitations (source):

NOTE: I have finished development of LILO at December 2015 because of some limitations (e.g. with BTFS, GPT, RAID). If someone want to develop this nice software further, please let me know ...

Also, I dunno what your position is on this, but it is amusing to see calls for Canonical to replace GPL licensed software, with something with a more lenient license (BSD-3-clause). Normally that would cause outrage around here

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

I recall something about LILO nor supporting RAID when i tried it a few years ago.

but it is amusing to see calls for Canonical to replace GPL licensed software,

Par for the course with Canonical™, much like all the rust rewrites.