And replace them with a new bootloader which doesn't require configuration (unless you want), and which is hotplug.
So for that reason, -1 for this. Spending time on grub-legacy and lilo is like polishing a turd. Until they are modernised, its a waste. As long as we use grub-legacy or lilo, even small system changes like swapping drives around on the bus will be troublesome.
Voted down again. Why does this come up all the time?
Of course also voted down Auzys idea. A bootloader has to be, above all, reliable and extremely well tested. Complexity, like automatic detections of stuff, always hurts reliability.
Dont using graphical grub splash screen is new feature of hardy. It has one target -> compact boot process look. I like "press ESC to see the menu". Three different types of screens by booting are very ugly (low resolution and low color grub screen, higher resolution splash screen, native resolution GDM screen).
1) If Ubuntu is the only OS on the system, simple and clean is by far more "professional" than a branded bootloader. There's no need for eye candy on a screen that you only need to see when something is broken.
2) If it's a dual boot system, the bootloader should be OS-unspecific. It doesn't make sense to use an Ubuntu branded bootloader when you're turning on the computer to use Windows.