[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grub2 vs. kexec

From: Pavel Roskin
Subject: Re: grub2 vs. kexec
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:22:52 -0400
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4)

Quoting Michael Reichenbach <address@hidden>:

With great interrest I was reading
the new ideas sound really innovative.

I see two possible approaches to implement such features. Either
- doing it the GRUB2 way or
- loading a linux kernel (which supports already all the stuff), loading
the needed drivers (bluetooth for menu, wlan and tcp/ip for network
booting) and use kexec to boot the the new kernel

I mean you are going to implement almost a complete operating system
again for booting another operating system. At the same time there is
already a complete operating system (linux) which is also able to boot
another operating system (kexec).

What is the advantage of the GRUB2 way?

The advantage of the GRUB2 way is that GRUB2 exists already. I'm not aware of a Linux based bootloader. It's not just a kernel. You'll need a minimal loader for the kernel, some userspace for the menus, scripts for modifying connfiguation files.

A Linux based bootloader could compete against GRUB2 for certain tasks. Perhaps it would be bigger and slower, but with more features. I'm not sure Linux kernel developers would be enthusiastic about kexec support for Multiboot and FreeBSD kernels, but maybe it can be done in userspace.

If you want a Linux based bootloader, make one.

Pavel Roskin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]