Re: Advice on NFS support in grub

[Christoph Plattner]

Hi all hackers !

Sorry you missunderstood my reaction.

I am not resonsible for GRUB in any way, I only a "fan" of it, and
as far as I can, I will help in the few spare hours I have
.. and my quality of help also will increase with the patches....

First of all, I never want to kill an idea. I only want say, that
it is a good idea not to explode GRUB too much in direction to a
full OS.

And to the second point: It was not my purpose to say:
        And here is a better idea to add.
I only want to present here an idea without starting a new mail !
Sorry this was not good. In the future I will use a seperate mail 
for my ideas.

Now to the NFS - Mr. Okuji has right. Of course, I am interested in
the idea.

By the way: the best NFS hack would be a INT13 handler for NFS
to use DOS diskless, where DOS uses a NFS "disk" !!

Sorry, if my reaction made you angry !!!

With friendly regards

        Christoph Plattner



Olivier Galibert wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:47:16AM +0200, Christoph Plattner wrote:
> > Although I like GRUB and I like "minimized" IP plus all services
> > (NFS, TELNET, etc), I am not sure if this is a good idea to add
> > telnet and a complex NFS (more than etherboot does). We never should
> > forget, we are writing a boot loader here not a complete OS !!!
> [...]
> > A bootload should be a small software which is even able to be promable
> > and to be used instead of the today silly BIOS (ok, I dream, but ....).
> >
> > I think there are more important issues to talk about, concerning the
> > basic boot loader function:
> >
> > For example should there be a possibility for paramter parsing in
> > special marked boot modules. [...]
> 
> > Another possibility is to define a environment in GRUB, [...]
> 
> > A further extension is, that the parser of the command `module'
> > should also handle `if' statements. [...]
> 
> > Also the `menu.lst' file should be parsable.[...]
> 
> > I thinks there are some more important things than writing an OS to
> > boot another OS !!!
> 
> Is there any other interpretation to this mail than "I'm not
> interested in your needs, so they're unimportant, and you should
> implement patches to address my needs instead." ?
> 
> The only polite answer I can think of is "you have the source".
> 
>   OG.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
private:        address@hidden
company:        address@hidden