In the land of Linux:
Why are we still using grub and a bunch of weird shell scripts, convoluted config files, and esoteric commands (which are thankfully usually automatically called by something else) instead of something simpler, more modern, and robust?
(I guess that probably means sd-boot or really almost anything other than grub.)
"It works" isn't really an answer, because grub is so fragile and it far-too-often does not work.
grub is delicate deep magic wrapped in layers of duct tape.
@garrett @trelane Debian + Suse have signed sd-boot in place, and in particular Suse is defaulting to it in some editions. Arch is pretty much there too. The problem is pretty much Fedora/RH at this point. RH's boot team has been pursuing alternatives to both grub and sd-boot for the last decade or so, with – let's say – "mixed" results, and always sinking more and more resources into it. At this point I figure it's pretty much down to that, since too many folks from other distros…
@trelane @pid_eins Right, agreed. That's my point. It's there. Why aren't distros using it already? (Inertia, I'm sure, but that's not a good reason.)